Guddappa Vs the President

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.11.2015 BEARING NO.HAGPAM:PUA: VAHI:06/2015-16 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC-D:29 WP No. 105773 of 2016

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question the order dated 19.11.2015 passed by the Zilla Panchayath, Haveri (respondent No.1), whereby the revision petition filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 came to be allowed and the order dated 28.02.2015 passed by the Taluka Panchayath, Hangal (respondent No.2) was setaside.

¶34

The undisputed facts are that the father of the petitioner, Ningappa son of Neelappa Talawar, was granted land bearing Sy.No.34/B26 measuring 4 guntas situated at Basapur village, Hangal taluk, in the year 1962, as a land loser, since several houses of the village were submerged due to floods of the Varada river. Pursuant to the said grant, the name of the petitioner's father was duly entered in the mutation register on 22.08.1962 and continued to stand in his name.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC-D:29 WP No. 105773 of 2016

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Respondent No.5, who is the uncle of the petitioner, and respondent no.6, the son of respondent No.5, got their names entered in the Grama Panchayat records pertaining to the said property, claiming that the petitioner's father had submitted a varadi seeking entry of their name in the Panchayat records. Based solely on the said varadi, the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 came to be entered in the Panchayat records.

¶39

Aggrieved by the said entry, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Taluka Panchayath, Hangal, (respondent No.2). Upon consideration of the entire material on record, the Taluka Panchayath allowed the appeal by order dated 28.02.2015, holding that there was no valid varadi or document authorising entry of the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6, and consequently directed deletion of their name and entry of the petitioner's name in the Panchayath records.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC-D:29 WP No. 105773 of 2016

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Challenging the said order, respondent Nos.5 and 6 preferred a revision before the Zilla Panchayat, Haveri (respondent No.1). By the impugned order dated 19.11.2015, the Zilla Panchayath allowed the revision and

¶44

set aside the order passed by the Taluka Panchayath, without assigning cogent reasons and without disputing the original grant in favour of the petitioner's father. Assailing the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the grant of land in favour of the petitioner's father is undisputed, and the mutation in his favour has remained intact since the year 1962. It is submitted that the entry of the names of respondent No.5 and 6 are based only on an alleged varadi, without any registered document or lawful authority, which by itself cannot confer or extinguish any right over immovable property.

¶46

It is contended that the Taluka Panchayath (respondent No.2) after appreciating the entire material on

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC-D:29 WP No. 105773 of 2016

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

record rightly held that there was no valid varadi given by the petitioner's father and that the entry made in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 was illegal and therefore correctly ordered deletion of their names from the Panchayath records.

¶51

Learned counsel submits that respondent No.1 while exercising revisional jurisdiction, has failed to assign any reason whatsoever as to how the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 could be sustained in the absence of any documentary evidence, especially when the original grant stood in favour of the petitioner's father.

¶52

Though the contesting respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been served with the notice, they have chosen to remain absent.

¶53

This Court has carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire material on record. The controversy arises only on account of the entry of the name of

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC-D:29 WP No. 105773 of 2016

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the Panchayat records. The said entry is admittedly based solely on an alleged varadhi said to have been given by the petitioner's father. The order passed by the Taluka Panchayat (respondent No.2), clearly records a categorical finding that no such varadi was available on record, nor was any registered document produced to justify the entry of the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6. In the absence of any lawful document, a mere varadi cannot confer, create or extinguish any right over the immovable property.

¶58

The Taluka Panchayath, after appreciating the entire material on record, has rightly held that the entry of the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the Panchayath record was illegal and unsustainable and accordingly directed deletion of their names and restoration of the petitioner's name.

¶59

On the other hand, the impugned order passed by the Zilla Panchayat (respondent No.1) does not assign

¶60

8 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC-D:29 WP No. 105773 of 2016

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

any cogent reason as to why the order of the Taluka Panchayath was liable to be interfered with. The Revisional Authority has failed to address the crucial issue as to how the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 could be sustained in

¶64

the Panchayat records in the absence of any registered document, particularly when the original grant in favour of the petitioner's father stood undisturbed. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Zilla Panchayath dated 19.11.2015 warrants interference. Accordingly this Court passed the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(ii) The impugned order dated 19.11.2015 (Annexure-E) passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside.

¶67

(iii) The order dated 28.02.2015 passed by the Taluka Panchayath, Hangal (respondent No.2) directing deletion of the name of respondent Nos.5 and

¶68

9 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC-D:29 WP No. 105773 of 2016

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

6 from the Panchayath records and restoration of the petitioner's name in respect of the subject land is hereby affirmed.

¶72

(iv) It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the parties, if so advised from working out their remedies before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law.

¶73

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶74

EM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Guddappa v. the President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddappa v. the President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Pallavi W/O Manjunatha Hulihonda Vs Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

Smt Shanta Surendra Goudar Vs State of Karnataka

Basappa Virupakshappa Mallapur Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kolachalam Vishwa Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Subhash Vs Smt.Kalavati

Mr. Kommineni Rajesh Roshan Vs the Air Officer Commanding