Partly allowed

Smt Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2021WP/44843/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka examined writ petitions challenging an Official Memorandum that cancelled entries in a Panchayat Demand Register. The bench held that the Executive Officer acted without jurisdiction under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a proper enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Official Memorandum is quashed; the matter is remitted to the respondents for conducting an enquiry in accordance with law within four months.

Smt Narayanamma Vs State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.44907/2014 (LB - RES) C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.44843/2014 (LB - RES) WRIT PETITION No.44845/2014 (LB - RES) WRIT PETITION No.44846/2014 (LB - RES) WRIT PETITION No.44906/2014(LB - RES)

¶8

IN W.P.No.44907/2014

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SMT.SIDDAMMA, W/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAHOBADENAHALLI, ALURU DUDDANAHALLI POST, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

[BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI.KUMARA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶13

IN W.P.No.44843/2014

¶14

BETWEEN

¶15

SMT.NARAYANAMMA, W/O SRIDHAR,

¶16

¶17

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAHOBADENAHALLI, ALURU DUDDANAHALLI POST, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶18

... PETITIONER

¶19

[BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI.KUMARA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶20

IN W.P.No.44845/2014

¶21

BETWEEN

¶22

SRI.BEERAPPA, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶23

SRI.B.M.NAGARAJ, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶24

SRI.B.M.JAYARAM, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶25

SRI.B.M.ANAND, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶26

SRI.B.M.SHIVAKUMAR, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶27

ALL ARE R/AT BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, ALURU DUDDANAHALLI POST, KUNDANA HOBLI,

¶28

¶29

DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶30

... PETITIONERS

¶31

[BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI.KUMARA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶32

IN W.P.No.44846/2014

¶33

BETWEEN

¶34

SMT.LAKSHMAMMA, W/O MANJUNATH C.H., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAHOBADENAHALLI, ALURU DUDDANAHALLI POST, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶35

... PETITIONER

¶36

[BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI.KUMARA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶37

IN W.P.No.44906/2014

¶38

BETWEEN

¶39

SRI.MANJUNATH C.H., S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAHOBADENAHALLI, ALURU DUDDANAHALLI POST, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶40

... PETITIONER

¶41

[BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI.KUMARA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶42

¶43

AND

¶44

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶45

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶46

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, VISHWANATH GRAM PANCHAYATH, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶47

... RESPONDENTS (COMMON)

¶48

[BY SRI.K.R.NITHYANANDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING);

¶49

SRI.M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶50

IN WRIT PETITION NO.44907/2014 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO.KNA/TPD/LOKAYUKTA4/2013-14 DATED 21.07.2014 KHATHA NO.72/198 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - A AND TO PASS ANY OTHER EQUITABLE ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.

¶51

IN WRIT PETITION NO.44843/2014 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY

¶52

¶53

THE R2 DATED 21.7.14, KHATHA NO.76/186 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - A AND TO PASS ANY OTHER EQUITABLE ORDER.

¶54

IN WRIT PETITION NO.44845/2014 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 DATED 21.07.2014 KHATA NO.61 AND 64 VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.,

¶55

IN WRIT PETITION NO.44846/2014 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 DATED 21.07.2014 KHATA NO.67/194 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - A AND TO PASS ANY OTHER EQUITABLE ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶56

IN WRIT PETITION NO.44906/2014 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO.KNA/TPD/LOKAYUKTA4/2013-14 DATED 21.07.2014 KHATA NO.67/196, 66/196A AND 66/196B WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - A AND TO PASS ANY OTHER EQUITABLE ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.

¶57

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶58

¶59

ORDER

¶60

The petitioners are all residents of Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk have presented these petitions calling in question an Official Memorandum dated 21.07.2014 by which the name of the petitioner which were found in the Demand Register of the Panchayat are cancelled.

¶61

Heard Sri. Jayaram S. Patil, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners,

¶62

Sri. K.R. Nithyananda, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in all these cases and have perused the material on record.

¶63

Sans unnecessary details, facts in brief, are

¶64

as follows:

¶65

The petitioners claim to be in possession of a property measuring '40 x '50 feet in Khata No.72/198 issued in her favour likewise the petitioners in all these

¶66

¶67

cases are the owners of certain property to which khata is issued by the Panchayat in different numbers.

¶68

Things standing thus, it transpires that, a complaint is registered before the office of the Lokayukta alleging certain fraudulent issuance of khata and ownership of certain persons including the petitioners in the properties that they own or their names being entered in the Demand Register.

¶69

This complaint results in an endorsement being issued by the office of the Lokayukta directing the Panchayat to hold an enquiry with regard to the allegations made in the complaint and submit a report on or before 11.08.2011. The endorsement was issued on 15.06.2011.

¶70

After receipt of such endorsement from the hands of the Lokayukta, it transpires that certain other correspondences have taken place between the office of

¶71

¶72

Lokayukta and the Panchayat, which finally results in another communication dated 07.08.2013 directing submission of a report as was earlier directed.

¶73

Pursuant to the receipt of the said communication, respondent No.2 - the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat undertook the exercise of conducting an enquiry in the manner as is depicted in the Official Memorandum dated 21.07.2014. What becomes of the enquiry is rather surprising as by the official memorandum, the Executive Officer passes the following order:

¶74

" ªÉÄÃ°£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 1993gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt 269gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ CªÀPÁ±ÀzÀAvÉ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄªÀ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ SÁvÉUÀ¼À zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀÄµÀªÁV ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ SÁvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸À®Ä DzÉÃ²¹zÉ.

¶75

(1) SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå: 161, 162, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 163gÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ SÁvÉAiÀÄ°è HfðvÀªÁUÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¤ªÀÈwÛ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆ¸ÀzÁV

¶76

¶77

²æÃªÀÄw ¸Á«vÀæªÀÄä PÉÆÃA ©ÃgÀ¥Àà £ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ

¶78

£ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ SÁvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À°è ªÀÄgÀÄ «AUÀqÀuÉUÉÆArgÀÄªÀ SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå:161/1, 161/2, 161/3, 161/4, 161/5, 161/6, 162/1, 162/2, 162/3, 162/4, 163/1, 163/2, 163/4, 163/5 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 163/6.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶79

(2) SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå:47/105gÀ ªÀÄÆ® SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀÄ «AUÀqÀuÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ½UÉ zÁR°¹gÀÄªÀ SÁvÉUÀ¼ÁzÀ 105/1, 105/2, 105/3 ºÁUÀÆ 105/4.

¶80

(3) ²æÃ ªÀÄÄ¤±ÁªÀÄ¥Àà ©£ï ©ÃgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÁV¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÆ® SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå:61, 62 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 64.

¶81

(4) SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå:101, 101/1, 101/2, 101/3, 101/4, 102, 102/1, 102/2, 102/3, 103, 103/1, 104, 104/1 ºÁUÀÆ 162/1.

¶82

(5) SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå.76/186.

¶83

(6) SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå.72/198.

¶84

(7) SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå.67/194.

¶85

¶86

(9) SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå.24/65.

¶87

¶88

ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹gÀÄªÀ J¯Áè C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ SÁvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ® ªÀ»AiÀÄ°è PÉA¥ÀÄ ±Á»¬ÄAzÀ UÀÄgÀÄw¹, gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹zÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ zÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ AiÀÄxÁ£ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ."

¶89

For the observations made in the order,

¶90

which the Executive Officer claims is a product of his enquiry, himself takes up the issue and cancels the names of the petitioners along with others from the Demand Register that was standing in their respective names and further directs the Panchayat to cancel all the khata and submit a compliance report to the Executive Officer.

¶91

The afore-extracted operative portion of the order indicates that the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat exercises his power under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short) to cancel the khata that was standing in the names of the

¶92

¶93

petitioners and the like. Section 269 of the said Act, reads as follows:

¶94

" 269. Appeals.- [(1) Any person aggrieved by any original order of the Grama Panchayat under this Act, unless appeal is provided elsewhere in this Act, may within thirty days from the date of such order appeal to the Executive Officer.]

¶95

(2) The Appellate Authority may after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard and after such enquiry as it deems fit, decide the appeal and its decision shall be final.

¶96

(3) Any appeal under sub-section(1) pending before the Zilla Parishad shall on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 stand transferred to the Assistant Commissioner and such appeal shall be decided by him as if it has been filed before him."

¶97

Section 269 of the said Act is a remedy available to any person aggrieved by a resolution of the Gram Panchayat to file an appeal against the said resolution of the Gram Panchayat.

¶98

¶99

Suo-motu powers of the kind that the

¶100

Executive Officer has now exercised is not the one that is conferred under Section 269 of the said Act. Therefore, the Executive Officer has usurped certain jurisdiction unavailable to him under Section 269 of the said Act and has acted beyond what he is empowered to do under the statute. Therefore, on this ground that the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat has exercised certain imaginary jurisdiction under Section 269 of the said Act and has cancelled the khata which right that the petitioners had in their favour right from 1995, is on the face of it erroneous.

¶101

12. Learned Senior counsel would emphasize on

¶102

the fact that the khata was not issued in the favour of the petitioners without any enquiry or examination. It is in the year 1995, when the third respondent became a separate panchayat, all the documents of the petitioners and the like were taken note of and then the names of

¶103

¶104

the petitioners were entered into in the Demand Register. All these factors have been conveniently ignored by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat at the time when he conducted farce of an enquiry as is found in the order impugned.

¶105

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has filed his objections would seek to take this Court through the objections to justify action of the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat contending that he has infact enquired into the matter and passed orders and the same is in accordance with law. The said submission deserves to be rejected and is rejected.

¶106

The submission of the learned Senior counsel sounds acceptance as the order passed by the Executive Officer apart from it being without jurisdiction does not bear consideration of the aforesaid facts and the kind of enquiry that he conducts prior to passage of the said order as contrary to law.

¶107

¶108

The documents would on its perusal indicate

¶109

that the entire episode of passing the order in a hurried manner is due to the communication of the Lokayukta. Communication of the Lokayukta to take a particular action would not mean that the impugned order would be passed in blatant contravention of law. The Lokayukta had directed submission of a report after enquiring into the matter. The Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat travels beyond what was directed by the Lokayukta, by firstly not submitting a report of the enquiry and by a issuing the impugned official memorandum cancelling the khata that stood in the names of the petitioners.

¶110

Therefore, the entire exercise right from submission of a report to the Lokayukta after conducting an enquiry in a manner known to law after hearing the petitioners will have to be undertaken by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat and the

¶111

¶112

Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat shall not initiate any proceedings after conducting an enquiry himself, but will take recourse to manner known to law after submission of the report to the Lokayukta.

¶113

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶114

ORDER

¶115

i. All the Writ Petitions are allowed in part.

¶116

ii. The impugned Official Memorandum in all these cases stand quashed.

¶117

iii. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the respondents for conduct of an enquiry, in accordance with law.

¶118

iv. The petitioners shall be heard before submission of a report to the Lokayukta as was directed.

¶119

v. The enquiry shall be conducted and concluded by the respondents within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶120

¶121

vi. The observations made during the course of the order shall be borne in mind while conducting an enquiry.

¶122

vii. It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced upon the merit of the claim of the petitioners.

¶123

viii. All the contentions of both the petitioners and the respondents are kept open.

¶124

Sd/JUDGE

¶125

SJK

Smt Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaprasad Navada Vs Leonard Fernandes

Sri. Arun Kumar L Vs the State by Station House Officer

Smt.Lingamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Gowramma Vs Adhyaksha

Sri Vigneshwaran N Vs the Commissioner

Bharath Jagannathan Vs State of Karnataka