Allowed

Smt. Laxmawwa W/O Gyanappa Shivanagutti, v. the Panchayat Development Officer

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2023WP/101082/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition praying for a direction to consider a representation regarding the assignment of PID numbers in disputed land was partly allowed. The Court directed the Second Respondent to treat the representation as an appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gramswaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, requiring notice to grantees before passing orders.

What did the court decide?

The representation is to be considered as an appeal under Section 269 of the Act; notice must be issued to grantees; decision to be completed within three months.

Smt. Laxmawwa W/O Gyanappa Shivanagutti, Vs the… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14448 WP No. 101082 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 101082 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LAXMAWWA W/O. GYANAPPA SHIVANAGUTTI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BOONAKOPPA, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT BANDI, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶14

Digitally signed
MOHANKUMARB SHELAR byMOHANKUMARB SHELARDate:
2023.12.14
11:56:54 +0530

¶15

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOPPAL. TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶17

RAMJANBI W/O. KASHIMSAB MUJAWAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶18

KENCHAWWA W/O. SUBBANAGOUDA TALAWAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶19

HANUMAPPA S/O. TIRUGUNEPPA WALIKAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶20

PARASAPPA S/O. HANAPPA GAJJI,

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14448 WP No. 101082 of 2023

¶22

AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶23

MALLAWWA W/O. FAKKIRAPPA UPLADDINI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶24

DURGAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA UPALDDINI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶25

SHARANAPPA S/O. DYAMANNA GOOGERI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶26

HULIGEWWA W/O. MURTEPPA WARIKAL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶27

FAKKIRAWWA W/O. NAGAPPA HARIJAN, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶28

RENUKA W/O. SANTOSH HARIJAN AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶29

SHEKAWWA W/O. BALAPPA WARIKAL, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶30

HUSENSAB S/O. ATALSAB MUJAWAR AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶31

KASIMSAB S/O. ATALSAB MUJAWAR AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶32

DEVAPPA S/O. BARAMAPPA WALIKAR AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶33

HANUMAGOUDA S/O. MUDAKANAGOUDA POLICEPATIL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶34

SAVANTRAWWA W/O. HANUMAPPA GOOGERI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶35

YEMUNAWWA W/O. SHIVAPPA HARIJAN, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶36

BASAWWA W/O. SHIVAPPA GAJJI AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶37

KALLAPPA S/O. HIREHANUMAPPA

¶38

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14448 WP No. 101082 of 2023

¶39

AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶40

BASAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESPONDENT NO. 5 TO 24 R/O. BOONAKOPPA VILLAGE, POST: DAMMUR, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL-583201

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. BHUSHAN KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R4, SRI. SHRIHARSHA S. NEELOPANT, ADV. FOR R5, R7 TO R14, R16 TO R20,

¶43

NOTICE TO R6, R15 AND R21 TO R24 DISPENSED WITH)

¶44

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 08.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND J.

¶45

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

¶46

ORDER

¶47

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶49

the petition as against respondents No.6, 15, 21 to 24 be dismissed as not pressed. Memo is accepted. Notice to respondents No.6, 15, 21 to 24 is dismissed as not pressed.

¶50

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14448 WP No. 101082 of 2023

¶51

The petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus

¶52

issuing direction to respondents No.1 and 2 namely the Panchayat Development Officer, Gram Panchayat, Yelburga and the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Yelburga. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that Sy.No.80/3 measuring 38 guntas in Boonakoppa village, Yelburga taluk, Koppal district is still in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and the petitioner is still the owner of the said property.

¶53

The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the order of the Panchayat assigning PID number in respect of certain sites in Sy.No.80 (before subdivision). Hence, she moved representations at Annexures-H and J. It is her grievance that the representations are not yet considered.

¶54

Learned counsel appearing for the respondentPanchayat has filed statement of objection and would contend that the petitioner’s lands have been acquired and compensation is paid to the petitioner, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

¶55

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14448 WP No. 101082 of 2023

¶56

Learned counsel for respondents No.5, 7 to 14

¶57

and 16 to 20 would contend that the respondents No.5, 7 to 14 and 16 to 20 are the grantees of the land. That the property originally belonged to the petitioner. However, since the land was acquired in accordance with law, and the compensation is paid to the petitioner, the petitioner

¶58

cannot seek possession of the land from the respondents.

¶59

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar.

¶60

If the contesting respondents are placed in possession of the property, pursuant to the grant, the petitioner cannot file a representation to the respondents seeking possession of such properties. The petitioner has to approach the competent forum seeking appropriate relief challenging the grant order.

¶61

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14448 WP No. 101082 of 2023

¶62

However, the grievance of the petitioner

¶63

relating to assigning PID number in respect of sites in Sy.No.80/3, which is said to have been made by respondent No.1 in the names of respondents No.4 to 24 has to be considered.

¶64

Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed in part.

¶65

The representation submitted by the petitioner to the second respondent shall be considered as an appeal before the second respondent under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gramswaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The petitioner is also permitted to file necessary application for condonation of delay if the representation which is now sought to be considered as an appeal under Section 269 of the Act of 1993 if the same was not in time when the representation was submitted to the second respondent.

¶66

The second respondent shall consider whether

¶67

the names of respondents No.4 to 24 have been entered in

¶68

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14448 WP No. 101082 of 2023

¶69

the property, which is still owned, if any, by the petitioner. If the second Respondent-Authority is of the view that the property numbers are assigned in the names of respondents No.4 to 24 in respect of property owned by the petitioner, then the Authority shall issue notice to the respondents No.4 to 24 before passing any orders on the said representation and the parties shall be heard and thereafter appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law.

¶70

If the second respondent Authority is of the view that PID numbers assigned are not pertaining to the property of the petitioner, then necessary endorsement to that effect shall be issued to the petitioner.

¶71

14. This exercise shall be completed within three

¶72

months. This Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.

¶73

KGK/ct-an / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

Smt. Laxmawwa W/O Gyanappa Shivanagutti, v. the Panchayat Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Laxmawwa W/O Gyanappa Shivanagutti, v. the Panchayat Development Officer

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.Sabanna G Pujeri, Vs the State of Karnataka

C.Umamaheshwar S/O C. Shankarappa Vs the Director (Administration and Hrd)

The Sharada Education Society Vs the Deputy Commissioner for

Shri Bhimappa S/O Durgappa Simikeri Vs the Commercial Tax Officer Audit - 2

Naveenkumar Parasappa Waddar Vs Registrar Evaluation

Basavathappa S/O. Mallappa Jeeragi Vs Prabhakar Mallariba Miragane