IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.3716/2016(LB-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. SUNITHA KUMAR APPA W/O SRI H T VASANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NO.70, BEL LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN VISHWANEEDAM POST BHARATH NAGAR BANGALORE-560 091.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H. T., ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD., BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE PRESIDENT SULEKERE GRAMA PANCHAYATH KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 060 3. THE SECRETARY SULEKERE GRAMA PANCHAYATH KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ANANDEESHWARA, HCGP.FOR R1.
SRI.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2& R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED:27.7.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED:18.12.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-G ISSUING BY RESPONDENT-2 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING “B” GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The case of the petitioner is that she has purchased site No.6 on 23.11.2013 from one Sri.Maheshwaraiah, who was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.7/2, which was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose as per the order dated 27.5.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. After converting the said land, Sri.Maheshwaraiah, had formed a layout for residential purpose, the same was approved by the respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner after purchasing site No.6 from Sri.Maheshwaraiah on 23.11.2013, intends to construct the building and hence, she approached the respondent No.2 by filing an application dated 27.7.2015 for change of katha in her favour. The respondent by issuing an endorsement dated 18.12.2015 vide Annexure-G has rejected the petitioner’s application on the basis of the circular issued by the State Government dated 31.1.2013 and 21.1.2014. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the circular which is referred by the Panchayath is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The Panchayath without application of mind has issued Annexure-G. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. The learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for the Panchayath has submitted that as per Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”), the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. Without expressing any opinion on merit, since, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 269 of the Act, the above writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority under Section 269 of the Act. If such an appeal is filed, the competent authority is directed to dispose of the same within eight weeks from the date of filing of the appeal before the competent authority.
Sd/- JUDGE DM