ORDER : 1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.03.2012 made in No. Zi.pan.man.Appeal 23/2010-11 passed by 6th respondent- Adhyaksha, Mandya Zilla Panchayat, Adhyaksha Court, Mandya as per Annexure-H and issue direction to confirm the order dated 17.07.2010 in case No. 1/2009 passed by respondent No. 2-Adhyaksha, Takuk Panchayat, Mandya and to restore the Katha No. 399/398 in the name of the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being uneducated scheduled caste person, has no property. On the representation made by the petitioner and others to the Gram Panchayat, Mandya and the petitioner being one of the applicant, the Gram Panchayat granted site measuring 23 x 24 feet in the name of the petitioner and other 19 applicants vide resolution No.34 dated 06.06.2008 and katha of the said site was made in favour of the petitioner vide Katha No. 399/398. Aggrieved by granting of katha in favour of the petitioner and other 19 applicants, 5th respondent approached Taluk Panchayat, Mandya against the resolution No.34 dated 06.06.2008. Considering the entire material on record, Adhyaksha of Taluk Panchayat, Mandya by order dated 17.07.2010 rejected the appeal and confirmed the katha made in the name of the petitioner and other 19 applicants by the Gram Panchayat. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Gram Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat, 5th respondent filed an appeal before 6th respondent – Zilla Panchayat, Mandya in appeal No. 23/2010-2011 under the provisions of Section 237(3) of Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. After considering, 6th respondent – Adhyaksha, Zilla Panchayat, Mandya has passed the impugned order dated 31.03.2012 by setting aside the order dated 17.07.2010 passed by 2nd respondent-Taluk Panchayat and resolution dated 06.06.2008 passed by 3rd respondent-Gram Panchayat in respect of Katha No. 399/398 made in the name of the petitioner and directed 2nd respondent to enter katha according to the spot mahazar in favour of 5th respondent. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri. N.V. Manjunath learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the 6th respondent-Zilla Panchayat by setting aside the order passed by the Taluk Panchayat and the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat directing to enter the name of the 5th respondent is erroneous and contrary to material on record. He further contended that 6th respondent - Zilla Panchayat without giving an opportunity of being heard, had proceeded to pass the impugned order. He would further contend that the impugned order passed by the 6th respondent is without jurisdiction and contrary to the dictum of this Court in the case of K.S. Nagaraja Rao vs. Chickmagalur Zilla Panchayat, Chickmagalur, (2000) 7 KLJ 448 and therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by the 6th respondent by allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, Sri. M.Y. Sreenivasan, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Sri. B.J. Somayaji learned counsel for respondent No. 6 has not disputed the fact that in view of the dictum of this Court in the case of K.S. Nagaraja Rao (supra), the 6th respondent- Adhyaksha, Zilla Panchayat, Mandya has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Taluk Panchayat confirming the katha made in the name of the petitioner. 7. The said fair submission is placed on record. 8. Sri. Munigangappa learned HCGP appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that the rights of the parties has to be decided by Civil Courts when a dispute is raised in respect of grant of land. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 9. It is not in dispute that 3rd respondent – Gram Panchayat by resolution No.34 dated 06.06.2008, has proceeded to enter the katha in favour of 20 persons including the present petitioner at Sl.no.9 measuring EW : 23 feet NS : 24 feet. The said resolutions are passed subsequently. The Gram Panchayat issued housing sites patta book and receipt book in favour of the present petitioner in respect of Kahta No. 399/398 site No. 9 Chandagiridoddi (slum) Mandya Taluk, Mandya and subsequently, Demand Register is also issued in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner paid taxes in respect of the property in question. The Gram Panchayat issued housing sites patta book and receipt book in favour of the present petitioner in respect of Kahta No. 399/398 site No. 9 Chandagiridoddi (slum) Mandya Taluk, Mandya and subsequently, Demand Register is also issued in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner paid taxes in respect of the property in question. When things stood thus, 5th respondent approached Taluk Panchayat by filing an appeal against the katha made only in the name of the petitioner in respect of the property in question. 10. The Taluk Panchayat by considering the entire material on record, by order dated 17.07.2010, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the resolution dated 06.06.2008 passed by Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner and other 19 applicants. It is also not in dispute, being aggrieved by the finding of the fact, the Gram Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat, 5th respondent filed appeal under Section 237(3) of Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 before 6th respondent Zilla Panchayat. The Zilla Panchayat without considering its powers under Section 237(3) of Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 has proceeded to pass the impugned order. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for both the parties in identical circumstances, this Court in the case of K.S. Nagaraja Rao (Supra) at paras 7 and 8, has observed as under: 7. In the instant case, the Adhyaksha of the Taluk panchayat had not either interfered with the resolution of the Grama panchayat or otherwise made any reference to the Adhyaksha of Zilla panchayat. The order passed by the Adhyaksha of the Taluk panchayat was an order of dismissal of the grievance made against the resolution of the Grama panchayat. It simply declined to interfere with the order/ resolution passed by the Grama panchayat. The Adhyaksha of the Zilla panchayat could not have therefore, invoked the provisions of Section 237(3) or set aside the order as he appears to have done. To sum up:- (a) The Adhyaksha of Zilla panchayats can interfere with an order or resolution of the Grama panchayat or any officer or authority only when the Adhyaksha of the Taluk panchayat makes a reference to him under Section 237(2) of the Act. To sum up:- (a) The Adhyaksha of Zilla panchayats can interfere with an order or resolution of the Grama panchayat or any officer or authority only when the Adhyaksha of the Taluk panchayat makes a reference to him under Section 237(2) of the Act. (b) The Adhyaksha of the Zilla panchayat can interfere with an order passed by the Taluk panchayat, or an officer or authority of such Panchayat which expression should include the “Adhyaksha of Taluk Panchayat also only if any such order is capable of execution. An order of the Adhyaksha of the Taluk panchayat refusing to interfere with the resolution of the Grama panchayat not being one such order cannot be interfered with by the Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat. 8. Counsel for respondent, Ms. Vaishali Hedge, submitted that if the third respondent did not have the right to invoke Section 237(3) she should be given the liberty to question the correctness of the resolution of the Grama panchayat and the order of the Adhyaksha of the Grama panchayat in appropriate proceedings before this Court. There is no gain said that if the statutory provisions do not provide any alternate remedy to a person aggrieved of an order passed by any authority exercising jurisdiction under the Act, the aggrieved person can take resort to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The third respondent shall therefore have the liberty to seek redress in writ proceedings if so advised. 9. Held that the Zilla Panchayat has no jurisdiction to quash the order passed by the Taluk Panchayat confirming the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the 6th respondent – Adhyaksha, Zilla Panchayat, Mandya made in case No. Zi.pan.man.Appeal 23/2010-2011 dated 31.03.2012 is hereby quashed reserving liberty to the parties to work out their remedies before the competent civil court in accordance with law.