Allowed¶41

Sri Kaveerappa @ Munukaverappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2025WP/1294/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kaveerappa @ Munukaverappa v. State of Karnataka, WP No. 1294 of 2024 (LB-UC), High Court of Karnataka, N S Sanjay Gowda J, decided 15-01-2025: Section 269 KGSPR Act appellate order dated 20/06/2022 directing removal of structures on katha No.17/2 and reducing recorded extent from 40x40 ft. to 40x25 ft. set aside for want of entitlement findings; matter remanded to Executive Officer, Bengaluru East Taluk; katha-change/entitlement dispute with respondents 5-6 referred to Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: impugned appellate order dated 20/06/2022 (C.R. 02/2021-22) set aside and matter remanded to the Appellate Authority with direction to record a categorical finding on the petitioner's entitlement to 40x40 ft. per the Assessment list versus 40x25 ft.; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶41

Sri Kaveerappa @ Munukaverappa Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned appellate order — which directed removal of temporary structures on katha No.17/2 and proceeded on the footing that the petitioner held only 40x25 ft. while the katha indicated 40x40 ft. — could be sustained without recording a finding on the petitioner's entitlement and without considering the katha register entries.

¶38

Court's answer

An appellate order passed on the presupposition that the petitioner owned only 40x25 ft., when the katha indicated that he owned 40x40 ft., cannot be sustained unless the Appellate Authority records a finding on his entitlement and the reason for not considering the katha register entries.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The impugned appellate order dated 20/06/2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority.

¶41

Key takeaways

On remand, the Appellate Authority must record a categorical finding as to how the petitioner is not entitled to an extent of 40x40 ft. as indicated in the Assessment list and as to how he is entitled only to an extent of 40x25 ft.ratio¶42
Any dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6 regarding the change of katha or over the entitlement of the land is expressly left to be settled through a suit before the Civil Court.obiter¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 — Section 269 appellate order dated 20/06/2022 in C.R. 02/2021-22 passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Bengaluru East Taluk — order directed removal of temporary structures on katha No.17/2 and assumed an extent of only 40x25 ft. although the katha/Assessment list recorded 40x40 ft., without any finding on the petitioner's entitlement or reasons for departing from the katha register entries. The High Court (N S Sanjay Gowda J) held such an order unsustainable, set it aside, and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to record a categorical finding on entitlement (40x40 ft. vs 40x25 ft.). Inter se disputes with respondents 5 and 6 over change of katha or entitlement were expressly left to a suit before the Civil Court.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1399 WP No. 1294 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1294 OF 2024 (LB-UC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI KAVEERAPPA @ MUNUKAVERAPPA S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.74, KADAGRAHARA VILLAGE, BIDRAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560077 SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU H L., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE OF TALUK PANCHAYATH, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560077

¶15

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560077

¶16

GOVERNMENT ANGANAVADI TEACHING CENTRE DODDAGUBBI POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560077 REPRESENTED BY ANGANAWADI TEACHER.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1399 WP No. 1294 of 2024

¶18

SRI. KANTHAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.03, KADAGRAHARA VILLAGE, BIDRAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560077.

¶19

SRI. SHIVKUMAR N S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.03, KADAGRAHARA VILLAGE, BIDRAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560077.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. SPOORTHI .V., HCGP FOR R-1 & R-4; SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI. M.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI. PRASANNA.V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-6)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/06/2022 IN APPELLATE APPEAL NO. C.R. 02/2021-22 PASSED BY RESPONDENTS 2/EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF TALUK PANCHAYATH BENGALURU EAST TALUK PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E TO THIS WP, ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:1399 WP No. 1294 of 2024

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This petition is filed challenging an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, ‘ the Act ’).

¶29

Under the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has directed to remove the temporary structures found on katha No.17/2.

¶30

The reasoning of the said order reads as follows –

¶31

“ ಪ��ಾ� 2ರವರು �ೕಲ�ನ��ಾರರ �ೕಲ�ನ��ೆ ತಕ�ಾರು ಮತು� ��ತ�ಾದವನು� ��ಾಂಕ 22/02/2022 ರಂದು ಮಂ !ದು", �ೕಲ�ನ��ಾರರು �ೕಲ�ನ�ಯ�$ %ೇ&ರುವ �ಷಯಗಳನು� ಅಲ$�ೆ+ೆಯು,ಾ�, ಸದ. ಮ�ೆಯ /ಾಗವನು� 2�ೇ ಎದುರು�ಾರರ ತಂ�ೆಯವರ ತಮ��ಾದ 1�ೕ �ೊಡ4ಮು5 ಹುಚ8ಪ9ನವ.ಂದ 1969 ರ�$ ಹಕು: ;ಡುಗ<ೆ ಪತ�ದ ಮೂಲಕ 2�ೇ ಎದುರು�ಾರ.�ೆ ಬಂ�ರುತ � ೆ . ಅದರಂ,ೆ 2�ೇ ಎದುರು�ಾರರ ಅನುಭವ ಮತು� ಕಂ�ಾಯವನು� ?ಾವ�!@ೊಂಡು ಬರು��ದು". ಆ ಸB�ನ 5ಜ�ಾದ Dಾ�ೕಕ�ಾEದು" Fೇ�ೆ Gಾ.ಗೂ ಹಕು: ಇರುವI�ಲ$ ಎಂದು ತಮ� ತಕ�ಾರು ��ತ�ಾದದ�$ �&ಸು,ಾ�. ಹಕು: ;ಡುಗ<ೆ ಪತ� Jಾ,ೆ , ಕಂ�ಾಯ ರ1ೕ�ಗಳನು� ಲಗ��!, �ೕಲ�ನ��ಾರರು ಸ�$!ರುವ �ೕಲ�ನ�ಯನು� ದಂಡ ಸ�ೕತ ವ/ಾDಾಡFೇ@ೆಂದು @ೋ.ರು,ಾ � ೆ .

¶32

1�ೇ ಎದುರು�ಾರ�ಾದ K. .ಒ ರವರು ��ಾಂಕ 16/06/2022 ರಂದು ಈ ?ಾ�N@ಾರ@ೆ: ಪ�ಕರಣ@ೆ: ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟR ವರ� ಸ�$!ರು,ಾ � ೆ .

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:1399 WP No. 1294 of 2024

¶35

�ೕಲ:ಂಡಂ,ೆ �ಾ� ಮತು� ಪ��ಾ�ಗಳ �ಾದ ಮತು� ��ಾದ ಮತು� �ಾಖTಾ�ಗಳನು� ಪ.1ೕ�!ದ ನಂತರ ಕ�ಾUಟಕ �ಾ�ಮ ಸB�ಾV ಮತು� ಪಂWಾಯX �ಾV ಅN5ಯಮ 1993 ಕಲಂ 269 ರ 5ೕ ರುವ ಪ�ದತ � ಾದ ಅN@ಾರವನು� ಉಪZೕE!@ೊಂಡು ಈ @ೆಳಕಂಡಂ,ೆ ಆ�ೇ1!�ೆ .

¶36

-:DzÉÃ±À:-

¶37

�ಾ� ಮತು� ಪ��ಾ�ಗಳ[ ಸ�$!ರುವ �ಾಖTಾ�ಗಳನು� ಪ.1ೕ�! �ಾ�ಯವರ �ೕಲ�ನ�ಯನು� ಅಂEೕಕ.!�ೆ . 2�ೇ ಎದುರು�ಾರ�ಾದ ಮುನು@ಾ�ೇರಪ9 Fೆ\ Tೇ] ಸಂ^ೕವಪ9 ರವರು Jಾ,ೆ ನಂ:17/2 ರ�$ �ಾ�ಮ_ಾ`ಾ ಬಂ �ಾ.ಯ�$ ಒತು�ವ. Dಾ @ೊಂಡು ಅಕ�ಮ�ಾE 5aU!ರುವ ,ಾ,ಾ:�ಕ ಗು ಸಲನು� ,ೆರವI�ೊ&bಸಲು ಆ�ೇ1!�ೆ ಮತು� Jಾ,ೆ ನಂ: 17/2 ರ ಪcವU-ಪ18ಮ=40 ಅ ಉತ�ರ-ದdಣ=40 ಅ �!�ೕಣUವನು� ರದು"�ೊ&! ಪcವU-ಪ18ಮ=40 ಅ ಉತ�ರ-ದdಣ=25 ಅ ಗಳ �!�ೕಣU�ೆಂದು �ದು"ಪ Dಾ Jಾ,ೆ ನಮೂದು Dಾಡಲು %ಾಗೂ ಅಂಗನ�ಾ eಾTೆಯ �!�ೕಣUವನು� ಮೂಲ�ಾನಪತ�ದಂ,ೆ 25*30 ಅ ಗಳಂ,ೆ ನಮೂ�ಸಲು ಎದುರು�ಾರ�ಾದ - 1@ೆ: %ಾಗೂ ಒತು�ವ. ಆEರುವ ಅಂಗನ�ಾ @ಾಂ?ೌಂಡನು� ,ೆರವI�ೊ&ಸಲು ಎದುರು�ಾರ�ಾದ 3�ೆಯವ.�ೆ ಸೂiಸು,ಾ�, �ೕಲ:ಂಡ �!�ೕಣUದಂ,ೆ Jಾ,ೆ ನಮೂದು Dಾಡಲು ಪಂWಾj� ಅkವೃ�m ಅN@ಾ.ಯವ.�ೆ ಸೂi! ಆ�ೇ1!�ೆ .”

¶38

As could be seen from the above, the Appellate Authority has not even indicated as to on what basis the petitioner was entitled to only an extent of 40x25ft. and not 40x40ft., as indicated in the katha.

¶39

Unless the Appellate Authority recorded a finding regarding the entitlement of the petitioner and the reason why he was not considering the entries in the

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1399 WP No. 1294 of 2024

¶41

katha register, the order passed on the presupposition that the petitioner owned a land only 40x25ft. when the katha indicated that he owned a land of 40x40ft. cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority.

¶42

The Appellate Authority is directed to record a categorical finding as to how the petitioner is not entitled to an extent of land measuring 40x40ft., as indicated in the Assessment list and as to how he is entitled to only an extent of 40x25ft.

¶43

This Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and remanded.

¶44

Any dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6 regarding the change of katha or over the entitlement of the land would obviously be subject to a suit that may be instituted by either of the parties before the Civil Court.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:1399 WP No. 1294 of 2024

¶47