Allowed

Smt J Jayamma v. the Zilla Panchayath

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2022WP/6305/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed writ petition and quashed impugned orders of the Second and First Respondents following under appeal regarding allotment of house sites. Court held that under Section 269 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act 1993, appeal lies to Executive Officer not the President of Grama Panchayat making it ultra vires.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.08.2010 passed by Respondent No.2 and order dated 23.11.2015 passed by Respondent No.1 were quashed with liberty to the fifth respondent to file appropriate application before

Smt J Jayamma Vs the Zilla Panchayath — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6305/2016 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT J. JAYAMMA

¶9

W/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶10

2 . SRI.NINGEGOWDA S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶11

SRI.RAMEGOWDA S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶12

SRI.SHANKAREGOWDA S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶13

SRI.JAVAREGOWDA S/O PUTTACHENNAI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT CHANDAGALU VILLAGE, DUDDHA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

¶15

... PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI R.S.RAVI, SR.ADV. FOR SRI MAYANNA GOWDA, N.R., ADV.)

¶17

AND:

¶18

1 . THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571401.

¶19

¶20

2 . THE TALUK PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, MANDYA-571401.

¶21

3 . THE TALUK PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CHANDAGALU GRAM PANCHAYATH, DUDDHA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

¶22

4 . THE CHANDAGALU GRAM PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, DUDDHA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

¶23

5 . SRI.THAMMAIAH @ NAGARAJU S/O BASAVEGOWDA, CHANDAGALU VILLAGE, DUDDHA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. ... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADV. FOR R2 & R4; SRI S.SHIVANANDA, ADV. FOR R5; R1 & R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DTD:13.8.2010 MADE IN APPEAL NO.40/1997-98 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANENXURE-F, ETC.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The petitioners were allotted sites in Sy.Nos.110 and 125 of Chandagalu village, Mandya District under the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands For Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 and thereafter, Hakku Patras were issued in their favour.

¶29

¶30

When things stood thus, the fifth respondent preferred an appeal before the second respondent challenging the resolution dated 29.04.1991 resolving to allot sites in favour of the petitioners. The second respondent passed an order dated 13.08.2010 setting aside the resolution allotting the sites in favour of the petitioners and consequently the Hakku Patras were issued in their favour.

¶31

The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 273(3) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1993") before the first respondent. The first respondent dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the second respondent. Hence this writ petition.

¶32

Sri.R.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

¶33

the petitioners would submit that the orders passed by the second respondent as well as the first respondent are one without authority of law, since an appeal under Section 269 of the Act of 1993 lies to the Executive Officer, Taluk

¶34

¶35

Panchayat, against the resolution passed by the Panchayat.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would justify the impugned orders passed by the respondents.

¶37

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act specifies that any person aggrieved by any original order of the Grama Panchayat under this Act, may within thirty days from the date of such order appeal to the Executive Officer. In the instant case, the appeal is filed before the President, Grama Panchayat, who is not the competent authority as specified under Section 269 of the Act of 1993. Hence the impugned order passed by the second respondent and also the order passed by first respondent confirming the order passed by the second respondent is one without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶39

¶40

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.08.2010 passed by the second respondent at Annexure-F and the impugned order dated 23.11.2015 passed by the first respondent at Annexure-G are hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved with the fifth respondent to file an appropriate application before the appropriate authority challenging the resolution passed by the Grama Panchayat allotting sites in favour of the petitioners, in accordance with law.

¶41

All contentions are left open.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

KNM/-

Smt J Jayamma v. the Zilla Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt J Jayamma v. the Zilla 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 Subramani Vs the State by Chikkaballapura Police Station

Shri H R Satishchandra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C R Chandran Vs Smt H K Sharadamba

M/S. Gm Infinite Dwelling (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Sri Yogesh M S Vs State by Its

The Teachers Colony Residents Association Vs the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike