Smt.Manjula Vs the Chief Executive Officer

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:18867 WP No. 54259 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 54259 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.MANJULA W/O SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT BYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE DODDA PYLAYAGURKI VILLAGE GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA .H, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.R. ANANTHA KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYAT CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.

¶14

SRI. M. RAMAMURTHY S/O VENKATACHALAPATHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BYAPPANAHALLI, YALAGERE POST CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK-562101.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. G.B. SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:18867 WP No. 54259 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.6.2017 VIDE NO.GPA/10/2014-15 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

In the captioned petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.1/Appellate Authority who has exercised power under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1993 Act') and the impugned resolution passed by the Dodda Pylayagurki Gram Panchayat vide Annexure-G wherein the Gram Panchayat has resolved to allot a gram panchayat property is set aside. The said order is called in question.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the records.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18867 WP No. 54259 of 2017

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The petitioner is asserting title over the petition property measuring 15 feet East-West and 20 feet North-South which is part and parcel of gramatana portion situated at Byappanahalli Village, Dodda Pylayagurki Village Gram Panchayat, Chikkaballapura District.

¶29

The core issue that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the Gram Panchayat was legally empowered to dispose of immovable property in contravention of the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 209 and 210

¶30

of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The controversy revolves around the legality and procedural propriety of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat in transferring public property without obtaining the necessary statutory approvals.

¶31

On a meticulous perusal of the resolution produced by the petitioner at Annexure-G , it becomes palpably clear that the Gram Panchayat has proceeded to alienate or transfer public property vested in it, without adhering to the procedure contemplated under Sections 209 and 210 of the 1993 Act. Section 209 of the Act expressly empowers a Gram Panchayat to acquire, hold, or dispose of property, but such powers are

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18867 WP No. 54259 of 2017

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

not unfettered and are subject to the rules and conditions framed by the Government. Further, the proviso to Section 210 specifically mandates that no immovable property vested in the Gram Panchayat shall be transferred, resold, or otherwise alienated without obtaining prior sanction from the Government, the Zilla Panchayat, or the Taluk Panchayat, as the case may be. These statutory safeguards are incorporated to ensure transparency and to prevent unauthorized alienation of public assets.

¶35

In the present case, there is no material on record to show that the Gram Panchayat had secured prior approval from any of the competent authorities, as required under the proviso to Section 210, before passing the impugned resolution. It is evident that the transfer was effectuated in disregard of the mandatory statutory procedure. Further, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has failed to implead the Gram Panchayat as a party respondent in the present proceedings. In the absence of the Gram Panchayat, the very foundation of the petitioner’s challenge is rendered procedurally

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18867 WP No. 54259 of 2017

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

defective, as any adjudication would have direct implications on

¶39

the Gram Panchayat, which is not before this Court.

¶40

Notwithstanding the above infirmities, the petitioner has raised two principal grounds in support of the writ petition. The first contention urged is that the appeal preferred before the Taluk Panchayat Chief Executive Officer was without jurisdiction, as the competent appellate authority under Section 269 of the 1993 Act is the Assistant Commissioner. This contention is completely misconceived. A bare reading of Section 269 clearly establishes that the Taluk Panchayat Chief Executive Officer is indeed empowered to entertain and adjudicate appeals against resolutions passed by a Gram Panchayat. The statutory scheme under Chapter XIV of the Act clarifies the appellate hierarchy and leaves no room for ambiguity regarding the jurisdiction of the Taluk Panchayat Chief Executive Officer.

¶41

The second limb of the argument canvassed by the petitioner is that the appeal was barred by delay, as it was instituted nearly three years after the resolution was passed. In this regard, it must be emphasized that Section 269 of the

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:18867 WP No. 54259 of 2017

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

1993 Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for preferring an appeal against a resolution of the Gram Panchayat. The absence of a statutory period of limitation implies that the appellate authority has the discretion to entertain an appeal even after a substantial delay, particularly in cases involving public interest or gross procedural violations. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal, in the facts of the present case, cannot be held fatal.

¶46

More importantly, the appellate authority, while entertaining the appeal, has noted that the resolution pertains to the transfer of public property without prior approval of the competent authority. In such cases, where valuable public property is sought to be transferred in clear contravention of statutory provisions, this Court finds it inappropriate to non-suit the appellate proceedings on the ground of delay. The plea advanced by the petitioner that a road existed on the property and the same was already being utilized is of no avail. The existence or usage of a road cannot cure the fundamental defect of lack of prior sanction as required under the proviso to Section 210.

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:18867 WP No. 54259 of 2017

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The crucial question that requires judicial determination in the present case is whether the Gram Panchayat, before passing the impugned resolution, complied with the procedural mandate under Sections 209 and 210 of the 1993 Act. Upon a thorough examination of the materials on record and the statutory scheme, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Gram Panchayat has failed to adhere to the prescribed procedure. The impugned resolution is in blatant contravention of the statutory mandate, and therefore, the resolution cannot be sustained in law.

¶51

The petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered in W.P.No.13406/2021 , to substantiate his claim. However, this Court is of the considered view that the facts and legal issues involved in the said case are entirely distinguishable from the present matter. The ratio laid down therein has no application to the facts of this case, where a clear statutory violation has occurred.

¶52

In view of the above analysis and having regard to the statutory provisions under the 1993 Act, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The impugned resolution being in

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:18867 WP No. 54259 of 2017

¶54

8 -

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

clear violation of Sections 209 and 210 cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶57

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶58

CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Smt.Manjula v. the Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Manjula v. the Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Rajegowda Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Mr. Herald Joan Monteiro Vs the Commissioner

Hasan Vs Koralahalli Grama Panchayat

Sardar Vallabai Patel Vidya Sanga (R) Vs the Executive Officer

Smt. Damayanthi Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr C Ramesh Vs the Commissioner