IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.39139 OF 2012 (LB-RES) Between:
Smt. Venkatalakshmamma W/o. Venkateshappa Aged about 55 years Residing at Doddanacharlu Village Somenhalli Hobli Gudibande Taluk. …Petitioner (By Sri. Vishwanath R. Hegde, Advocate) And:
1. President Zilla Panchayath Chikkaballapura.
2. Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath Gudibande Taluk.
3. Smt. Savithramma D/o. Ramaiah Age: Major R/at. Doddanacharlu Village Somenahalli Hobli Gudibande Taluk. …Respondents (By Sri. B.J. Somayaji, Advocate for R1 and R2; Sri. G. Papi Reddy, Advocate for R3 (absent)) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 13.08.2012 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-E and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner who claims to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing site No.15, Doddanancharlu Village, Somenahalli Hobli, Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapur District, has filed the present petition challenging the order at Annexure-‘E’ stated to have been passed under Section 237 of Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short.) There is no representation for respondent No.3 when the matter is called out.
2. By virtue of the impugned order at Annexure-‘E’, the order passed at Annexure-‘A’ whereby the khata entry made in the name of respondent No.3 was struck of and there was a direction to restore the entry in the name of the petitioner taking note of the sale deed dated 30.09.1981.
3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that power cannot be exercised as regards an order passed under Section 269 of the Act against the order at Annexure-‘A’ by taking recourse to Section 237 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Trust draws attention of this Court to the judgment passed in the case of Karagappa and Others versus State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2015(4) KCCR 3544 (DB) .
4. In the light of the settled proposition of law, it is clear that no recourse can be had by invoking power under Section 237 to interfere with the order passed under Section 269 of the Act against the order found at Annexure-‘A’.
5. Accordingly without expressing any opinion as regards to the merits of the matter, order dated 13.8.2012 passed by the President, Zilla Panchayath, Chikkaballapura at Annexure-‘E’ is set aside.
6. The contention of the parties are kept open.
Liberty is reserved to challenge the order at Annexure-‘A’ if permissible in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD