Allowed

Shri. Basavanni S/O Gurusidda Mokashi, v. the Zilla Panchayat

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023WP/101435/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order by the Zilla Panchayat under Section 237(3) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. It held that the Adhyaksha cannot act as an appellate authority and yet empowered a final-order appeal lies only to the Executive Officer under Section 269.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition has been allowed and the impugned order dated 16.01.2016 passed by Respondent No.1 has been dismissed.

Shri. Basavanni S/O Gurusidda… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13256 WP No. 101435 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 101435 OF 2016 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI BASAVANNI S/O. GURUSIDDA MOKASHI, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S.

¶9

1(A) SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. BASAVANNI MOKASHI, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶10

1(B) SMT. CHAMPAWWA S/O. BALAJI YAMAKANAMARADI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶11

1(C) SRI JYOTIBA S/O. BASAVANNI MOKASHI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶12

1(D) SRI PARASHURAM S/O. BASAVANNI MOKASHI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶13

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶14

1(E) SRI SHASHIKALA W/O. SANJU KOLEE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶15

1(F) SRI CHIRANJIVI S/O. BASAVANNI MOKASHI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/AT: ARJUNWAD VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

SHRI KADAPPA S/O. HANAMANT MOKASHI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/AT: ARJUNWAD VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SMT. DEEPA DODDATTI FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR P-1)

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13256 WP No. 101435 of 2016

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BELAGAVI, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶22

THE TALUKA PANCHAYAT, HUKKERI, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HUKKERI.

¶23

THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOCHERI, TALUK: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶24

SRI MARUTI S/O. BALAPPA DHANGE, AGE: YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: ARJUNWAD, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. REPRESENTED BY THE GPA HOLDER, SRI MALLAPPA S/O. MARUTI DHANGE, AGE: YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: ARJUNWAD, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SMT. DRAKSHAYANI GANAPATI BHOSALE, AGE: YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: ARJUNWAD, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI V. SHIVRAJ HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2; SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADV. FOR R3; SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADV. FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1 AND R5 ARE SERVED)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT ZP/ADYAKSHA/APPEAL/NO.10/2015-16 DATED:16.01.2016, COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-F AS ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW.

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13256 WP No. 101435 of 2016

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the order passed by respondent No.1 under Section 237(3) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘KPR Act, 1993’, for short), in respect of the property bearing VPC No.504D/1.

¶32

In Appeal No.3/2014-15, respondent No.2 had

¶33

passed an order in favour of the petitioners herein, directing their names to be entered in Gram Panchayat records, pertaining to the property concerned. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal has been filed by respondent No.4 herein before respondent No.1 under Section 237(3) of the KPR Act, 1993, which has been allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶34

The case of the petitioners is, firstly an appeal

¶35

against the order passed by respondent No.2 does not lie to respondent No.1 under Section 237(3) of the KPR Act,

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13256 WP No. 101435 of 2016

¶37

It is also argued that, even otherwise, the impugned order is not a speaking order and no reason is given as to why the order passed in Appeal No.4/2014-15 has been set aside.

¶38

Advocate for respondent No.4 submits he has no objection for allowing the writ petition and accedes to the arguments of the petitioners.

¶39

Against the order passed by the Gram Panchayat, an appeal shall lie to the Executive Officer under Section 269 of the KPR Act, 1993 and the order passed by the Executive Officer shall be final. No further appeal is provided for, to be filed before Zilla Panchayat.

¶40

Section 237(3) of the KPR Act, 1993 is a power conferred on Adhyaksha to stay the execution of any order or resolution of Taluk Panchayat, if it is unjust and unlawful or improper or is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or to lead to a breach of peace. It cannot sit as an appellate authority and decide the dispute.

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13256 WP No. 101435 of 2016

¶42

In the instant case, respondent No.1 has

¶43

exercised its jurisdiction when it had no power. Further,

¶44

the said order is also not a reasoned order.

¶45

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 16.01.2016 passed by respondent No.1 bearing No.ZP/Adyaksha/ Appeal/No.10/2015-16, vide Annexure-F to the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

gab Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Shri. Basavanni S/O Gurusidda Mokashi, v. the Zilla Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Basavanni S/O Gurusidda Mokashi, v. the Zilla Panchayat

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

Saraswati Mahila Mandal Vs the Director

The Managing Director Vs Balayya S/O. Shivakumar Hiremath

Section Officer Vs Suresh Yamanappa Baragal

Shivajirao Balagouda Patil Vs Flt. Lt. Kuleep Shivajirao Patil (Retd)

Shri. Basavanni S/O Gurusidda Mokashi, Vs the Zilla Panchayat

Chandrashekhar S/O Laxmappa Dasannavar Vs the Chief Secretary