Petitioner challenged an order cancelling her katha. The Court found the Panchayath failed to hear her before cancelling it and the Executive Officer wrongly denied her appeal right. Petition allowed in part; order quashed and matter remitted for hearing.
Impugned order dated 30.12.2013 quashed; matter remitted to Panchayath for hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.56648/2018 (LB - RES)
BETWEEN
SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135.
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADV. (PHYSICAL HEARING)]
AND
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADV. (PHYSICAL HEARING)]
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.12.2013 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in
question an order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath and has sought for a direction for restoration of katha No.97/2A measuring to an extent of East to West 10 feet and North to South 20 feet situated at Dandiganahalli Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
2. Heard Sri. Srikanth N.V., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.
3
vacant site in katha No.97/2A as described in the petition. It transpires that the Panchayath on 30.09.2013 passed a resolution taking up the issue of issuance of katha in favour of the petitioner of the said portion of the land in Sy.No.97/2A and resolved to cancel the same on the ground that the petitioner had only used the said property to the house the cows that were in his possession and is not property that belong to him.
as shown at Annexure - B did contain the name of the petitioner of the portion of the alleged encroachment. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been heard prior
4
to the resolution of the Panchayath removing the name
of the petitioner from the demand register.
the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal under Section 269 of the Panchayat Raj Act before the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer has accepted the resolution of the Panchayath and issued a memorandum on 09.01.2014. The Executive Officer is the Appellate Authority under the Act.
have issued a memorandum accepting the resolution of the Panchayath taking away the right of the appeal of the petitioner. The Panchayath prior to passage of the aforesaid resolution, did not afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5
Officer are rendered unsustainable. For the aforesaid
reasons, the following:
ORDER
iii. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Panchayath to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sd/JUDGE
KG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order cancelling the katha on the ground of alleged encroachment should be quashed for lack of opportunity of hearing.
Whether the Executive Officer could issue a memorandum accepting the Panchayath's resolution without affording the petitioner an appeal under Section 269.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Gowramma
The Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath
The Panchayath Development Officer
M. Nagapranna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
