Allowed

Nanjegowda v. Grama Panchayath

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2022WP/30569/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to quash an appellate order removing the petitioners' names from the Assessment Register. The Court held that the lower appellate authority lacked jurisdiction under Section 237 for the specific dispute. The writ petition was allowed, set aside the impugned order, and directed the respondents to file an appeal under the correct section.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 was set aside.

Nanjegowda Vs Grama Panchayath — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.30569/2015 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NANJEGOWDA

¶9

S/O. LATE. SMT. SIDDAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶10

SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O. LATE. NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶11

SRINIVASA

¶12

S/O. LATE. NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶13

SMT. NANJAMMA D/O. LATE. NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶14

NANJEGOWDA @ THAMMANAGOWDA, S/O. LATE. NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶15

LAKSHMIGOWDA @ PUTTEGOWDA, S/O. LATE. NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶16

SRIKANTEGOWDA, S/O. LATE. NANJEGOWDA

¶17

¶18

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶19

VISHAKANTEGOWDA, S/O. LATE. NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶20

SMT. CHIKANANJAMMA, D/O. LATE. NANJEGOWDA, DEAD BY LRS,

¶21

8(A) NINGEGOWDA (HUSBAND) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶22

8(B) MAMATHA D/O. NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶23

8(C) S.N. MANASA D/O. NINGEGOWDA, MINOR, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,

¶24

8(D) PANCHALINGEGOWDA, S/O. NINGEGOWDA, MINOR, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,

¶25

8(C) AND 8(D) ARE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND SRI. NINGEGOWDA - FATHER [PETITIONER 8(A)]

¶26

9 SMT. JAYAMMA D/O. LATE. NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶27

10 PUTTASWAMY, S/O. LATE. NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶28

¶29

ALL ARE RESIDING AT LAKSHMEGOWDANA DODDI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.

¶30

…PETITIONERS

¶31

(BY SRI. K.L. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.N. MADHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATES) AND:

¶32

GRAMA PANCHAYATH MADARAHALLI, MADARAHALLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶33

THE PRESIDENT TALUK PANCHAYATH, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428

¶34

THE PRESIDENT, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶35

L.H. HANUMEGOWDA, S/O. HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶36

THIMMEGOWDA @ PUTTASWAMY S/O. MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶37

¶38

RAJEGOWDA S/O. LATE. KARI KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶39

NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O. LAKSHMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶40

NANJUNDEGOWDA, S/O. LATE. BASAPURI THIDIGOWDA @ NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶41

RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT LAKSHMEGOWDANA DODDI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3. SRI. YATHISH J NADIG, ADVOCATE FOR R4 – R8 R2- SERVED)

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF R-3 IN APPEAL NO.36/2011-12 DT.9.7.2015 AT ANNX-E.

¶45

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶46

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.07.2015 passed by respondent No.3 herein, by which the name of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners (Nanjegowda) was ordered to be removed from the Assessment Register (Khatha) concerning the property bearing site No.10 of Lakshmegowdanadoddi, Maddur Taluk.

¶49

The petitioners claim to be the wife and children of Nanjegowda, who was granted a site bearing No.10 by the Government of Karnataka, in terms of a grant certificate dated 22.01.1971. The name of Nanjegowda was entered in the Assessment Register of respondent No.1 in terms of the order dated 08.11.1999. The respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein challenged the said order before respondent No.2 purportedly under Section 237 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act, 1993’). The respondent No.2, though not empowered under the Act, 1993 to entertain an appeal,

¶50

¶51

entertained it and dismissed it in terms of the order dated 28.10.2011. This was again challenged by respondent Nos.4 to 8 before respondent No.3. The respondent No.3, in terms of his order dated 09.07.2015, allowed the appeal and set aside the entries made in the name of the predecessor in title of the petitioners (Nanjegowda). This order is challenged in the present writ petition.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 had no power to entertain an appeal against the order registering the names of the petitioners in the Assessment Register and therefore, respondent No.3 could not have entertained an appeal against the said order. He also contended that respondent No.3 without securing records, unilaterally held that the records did not support the claim of the petitioners that the site in question was granted to Nanjegowda on 22.01.1971. He also contended that after nearly 40 years, respondent No.3 arbitrarily held that Nanjegowda had conspired with the

¶53

¶54

Secretary of the Panchayath to get his name entered in the records.

¶55

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8 submitted that respondent No.2 was entitled to entertain an appeal and that respondent No.3 had set aside the entry of the name of Nanjegowda in the records since there was no document to establish that the said site was granted to Nanjegowda. Even otherwise, he contended that the respondents were granted the aforesaid land in the year 1985 and they were not heard before entering the name of Nanjegowda in the records.

¶56

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 submitted that this Court in similar circumstances has already opined in a slew of cases that respondent No.2 has no authority to entertain a dispute under Section 237 of the Act, 1993 and therefore, the proceedings before respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.3 were without jurisdiction.

¶57

¶58

It is the case of the petitioners that the site in question was allotted to Nanjegowda in the year 1971. Respondent Nos.4 to 8 claim title to the very same property in terms of grant made in their favour, allegedly on 13.05.1985. If respondent Nos.4 to 8 were aggrieved by the order registering the name of the predecessor in title of the petitioners in the Assessment Register, it was appropriate for respondent Nos.4 to 8 to avail procedure provided under Section 269 of the Act, 1993 and certainly not by invoking Section 237 of the Act, 1993 by filing appeal before respondent No.2. The writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed on this short ground alone.

¶59

7. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the

¶60

impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is set aside.

¶61

However, it is open for respondent Nos.4 to 8 to file an appeal under Section 269 of the Act, 1993, in accordance with law. The time consumed in pursuing the proceedings before respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall be

¶62

¶63

enlarged while calculating the limitation applicable to appeal under Section 269 of the Act, 1993.

¶64

All contentions are left open.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

SMJ

Nanjegowda v. Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanjegowda v. Grama Panchayath

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

Sri S Ramesh @ Ramu Vs State of Karnataka

North Bangalore Education Trust Vs Mr K C Venkatesh

Sameera Banu Vs the Chief Commissioner

C Balakrishna Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp)

Sri Muraligowda S R Vs the State of Karnataka

Apl Worldwide Express Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer