Allowed

Vyvasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamita v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2024WP/8872/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A co-operative society challenged an appellate order refusing revenue entries for its property, alleging no notice and that the officer had handed over charge before deciding the appeal. The Court quashed the order and restored the proceedings for reconsideration after due notice to both parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 09.10.2020 in VPC No.5/2015-16 quashed; proceedings restored for reconsideration after due notice; revenue entries to continue until disposal of appeal.

Vyvasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamita Vs State of… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49995 WP No. 8872 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8872 OF 2021 (LB-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

VYVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITA NAGASANDRA KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 134 REP BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER N M PUTTALINGAIAH.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI.P.P. HEGDE., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT REP BY SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001.

¶11

SHRI.SHIVARAJAYYA CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT,

¶12

KUNIGAL TUMKURU-572 134.

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49995 WP No. 8872 of 2021

¶14

PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NAGASANDRA GRAM PANCHAYAT NAGASANDRA KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572134.

¶15

SMT.NAGARATNAMMA AGED 48 YEARS, W/O N.H RAMANNA, NAGASANDRA VILLAGE, YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKURU-572 134.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.CHANDINI., HCGP FOR R1; SMT. MOUNIKA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. Y.D. SHIVASHANKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.10.2020 PASSED BY R-2 IN VPC NO.05/2015-2016 VIDE ANNXD; DIRECT R-1 TO INITIATE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST R-2 AND REPORT THE COMPLIANCE TO THIS HONBLE COURT WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD THAT MAY BE FIXED BY THIS HONBLE COURT; DIRECT R-1 TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS.50,000 TO PETITIONER.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

¶20

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:49995 WP No. 8872 of 2021

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner - a Co-operative Society - is aggrieved by the second respondent's order dated 09.10.2020 in VPC No.05/2015-16 [ Annexure-D ] - an appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [for short, 'the Panchayat Raj Act ']. The second respondent has dismissed the appeal refusing the benefit of revenue entries for the property bearing No.361 of Nagasandra village, Yediyuru Hobli, Kunigal [ coming within the limits of Nagasandra Grama Panchayat ]. The second respondent, after referring to the suit between the petitioner and the fourth respondent in O.S.No.347/2009, has observed thus while rejecting

¶26

the suit.

¶27

«ªÁ¢vÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ MAzÉÃ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄÆ® zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »UÁUÀ¯ÉÃ «ªÁ¢vÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ PÀÄtÂUÀ¯ï ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ°è C¸À®Ä zÁªÁ £ÀA. 347/2009 gÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÉqÉzÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 09.03.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ zÁªÉ ªÀeÁUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, DzÀ PÁgÀt

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:49995 WP No. 8872 of 2021

¶30

ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁUÉÆÃ½¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ JAzÀÄ ¤Ãtð¬Ä¹ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀvÉ DzÉÃ²¹zÉ

¶31

Sri P.P. Hegde, the learned Senior Counsel

¶32

for the petitioner, submits that this Court must interfere with the impugned order because the petitioner has had no due opportunity in the appeal and that the second respondent could not have passed the impugned order as he had handed over charge consequent to his transfer prior to the date of the impugned order. On the outcome in the suit in O.S.No.347/2009, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the suit is dismissed in the year 2016 but in the appeal filed by the petitioner in RA No.38/2016 the said judgment and decree are set aside and that the suit is restored for reconsideration on merits upon remand and the suit is pending consideration.

¶33

3. Sri P.P. Hegde, to bolster the petitioner's

¶34

case that the petitioner is not served with due notice, invites this Court's attention to the Note Nos.33 and

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49995 WP No. 8872 of 2021

¶36

35 of the proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel submits that notice of hearing scheduled to be held on 08.10.2020 is ordered, but the petitioner is not issued with such notice, and that this could be seen by the facts that the note is not signed by the concerned Case Worker and that the fourth respondent cannot place on record a copy of this notice dispatched.

¶37

Smt. Mounika K., the learned counsel for

¶38

the second and third respondents, while relying upon a copy of the Certificate of Transfer of Charge [CTC], submits that the second respondent has signed the CTC on 14.10.2020 and this shows that the second respondent was working as the Executive Officer of the Panchayat as of 09.10.2020, an assertion that is also underscored by Sri Y.D. Shivashankar, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, and Smt.Chandini S, a learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent. However, none can

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49995 WP No. 8872 of 2021

¶40

dispute the assertions that the suit in O.S.No.347/2009 is now restored for adjudication on merits or that the petitioner is not issued with notice in terms of the Office Note at No.33 in the proceedings.

¶41

As regards the second respondent

¶42

deciding the appeal on 09.10.2020 and the rebuttal that the officer could have indeed decided the appeal because he has handed over charge on 14.10.2020, this Court on perusal of the CTC must observe that, though the second respondent has signed this document on 14.10.2020 the details are dated 03.10.2020. The disciplinary authority concerned may have to look into and call for the response, but this Court must interfere with the impugned order and restore the proceedings for reconsideration, and hence, the following:

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:49995 WP No. 8872 of 2021

¶44

ORDER

¶45

[A] The petition is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 09.10.2020 in VPC No.5/2015-16 [Annexure-D] is quashed restoring the proceedings to the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kunigal for reconsideration after due notice to both the petitioner and the fourth respondents.

¶46

[B] The petitioner and the fourth respondent shall appear before the Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat Kunigal without further notice on 20.01.2025.

¶47

[C] The revenue entries for the subject property shall continue as it stands today until the disposal of the appeal.

¶48

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶49

SA ct:sr

Vyvasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamita v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vyvasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamita v. State of Karnataka

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

Smt.M.Lakshmidevamma Vs the Chief Officer

B. Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Muthyala Karthik Vs the Commissioner

M/S G M Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdul Rasheed Vs the Commissioner

Smt. T. N. Manjula Vs the Government of Karnataka