IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.5057/2019 (LB – RES) BETWEEN:
Sri. Kantharaju, Aged about 50 years, S/o. late Narayanappa, R/at Kadaseeganahalli Village, Nandhi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk, and District – 562 103. …Petitioner (By Sri. Raghavendra K., Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. Muniyappa, S/o. Munishamappa, Aged about 60 years, R/at Kadaseeganahalli Village, Nandhi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk and District – 562 103.
2. The Panchayath Development Officer, Kondenahalli Gramapanchayath, Nandhi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk and District – 562 103.
3. The Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayathi Chikkaballapura, Chikkaballapura Taluk and District – 562 103. ...Respondents (By Sri. M. Jai Prakash Reddy, Advocate for R1; Sri. B.J. Somayaji, Advocate for R2 & R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 dated 27.12.2018 G.P.A.09/2017-18 (Annexure-C).
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner who claims to be the owner of property bearing House List Nos.224, 224/1 and 224/2 has challenged the order passed by the 3rd respondent at Annexure – C whereby the 3rd respondent has set aside the entries made in the petitioner’s name.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that entry with respect to House list No.224 and 224/1 has been effected long back and finds a mention in the records of the year 1994-95. Copy of the House List extract is produced along with the memo. It is submitted that if that were to be so, appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Zilla Panchayath, Taluk Panchayath and Grama Panchayath Act, ought to have been filed within 30 days and in the present case, there is no reference of application having been filed seeking condonation of delay. It is further submitted that impugned order has been passed without condoning the delay and on this ground itself impugned order is liable to be set aside with respect to the House List Nos.224 and 224/1.
3. Insofar as the House List bearing No.224/2, it is contended that the Resolution dated 12.05.2017 had resolved to allot the House List No.224/2 in favour of the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that admittedly the appeal is filed beyond period of 30 days and hence, appeal is not maintainable without condoning the delay.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to controvert the contention as regards the House List Nos.224 and 224/1, admittedly appeal is filed beyond the period of 30 days. Insofar as House List No.224/2, resolution is passed in the year 2017 that is on 12.05.2017 and the appeal has been filed on 12.07.2017. Insofar as House List No.224/2 is concerned, respondents contend that entry has been affected without there being any supporting document of title.
5. A perusal of the order sheet of the Appellate Authority would reveal that matter was adjourned to 27.12.2018. It is noted in the order sheet that the report of the ADLR has been placed on record and on the same date itself order is passed. It is the contention of the petitioner that order has been passed without affording an opportunity to object to the findings in the ADLR report.
6. Heard both sides. It is clear that insofar as the appeal filed with respect to House List No.224 and 224/1 that the appeal is barred by time. House List entry No.224 and 224/1 is recorded in the name of the petitioner way back in the year 1994-95 as revealed from the documents annexed along with the memo. Hence, appeal should have been filed along with the necessary application for condonation of delay.
7. Further, it is noted that under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Grama Panchayats Taxes and Fees) Rules, 1994, there is a provision to seek for rectification of entry. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek necessary action if permissible under law. Insofar the appeal in respect to House List No.224/2, the order is set aside on the ground that proceedings have been conducted without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the findings of the ADLR Report. The proceedings to be proceeded afresh after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case insofar the report of the ADLR.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
In the light of the disposal of the main petition, no orders are required to be passed on the pending I.As.
Sd/- JUDGE SV