Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 978 (KAR)

Siddamma v. State Of Karnataka

2021-12-01

M.NAGAPRASANNA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are all residents of Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk have presented these petitions calling in question an Official Memorandum dtd. 21/7/2014 by which the name of the petitioner which were found in the Demand Register of the Panchayat are cancelled. 2. Heard Sri. Jayaram S. Patil, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners, Sri. K.R. Nithyananda, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in all these cases and have perused the material on record. 3. Sans unnecessary details, facts in brief, are as follows: The petitioners claim to be in possession of a property measuring 40 x 50 feet in Khata No.72/198 issued in her favour likewise the petitioners in all these cases are the owners of certain property to which khata is issued by the Panchayat in different numbers. 4. Things standing thus, it transpires that, a complaint is registered before the office of the Lokayukta alleging certain fraudulent issuance of khata and ownership of certain persons including the petitioners in the properties that they own or their names being entered in the Demand Register. 5. This complaint results in an endorsement being issued by the office of the Lokayukta directing the Panchayat to hold an enquiry with regard to the allegations made in the complaint and submit a report on or before 11/8/2011. The endorsement was issued on 15/6/2011. 6. After receipt of such endorsement from the hands of the Lokayukta, it transpires that certain other correspondences have taken place between the office of Lokayukta and the Panchayat, which finally results in another communication dtd. 7/8/2013 directing submission of a report as was earlier directed. 7. Pursuant to the receipt of the said communication, respondent No.2 - the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat undertook the exercise of conducting an enquiry in the manner as is depicted in the Official Memorandum dtd. 21/7/2014. What becomes of the enquiry is rather surprising as by the official memorandum, the Executive Officer passes the following order: 8. 7. Pursuant to the receipt of the said communication, respondent No.2 - the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat undertook the exercise of conducting an enquiry in the manner as is depicted in the Official Memorandum dtd. 21/7/2014. What becomes of the enquiry is rather surprising as by the official memorandum, the Executive Officer passes the following order: 8. For the observations made in the order, which the Executive Officer claims is a product of his enquiry, himself takes up the issue and cancels the names of the petitioners along with others from the Demand Register that was standing in their respective names and further directs the Panchayat to cancel all the khata and submit a compliance report to the Executive Officer. 9. The afore-extracted operative portion of the order indicates that the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat exercises his power under Sec. 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short) to cancel the khata that was standing in the names of the petitioners and the like. Sec. 269 of the said Act, reads as follows: "269. Appeals.-[(1) Any person aggrieved by any original order of the Grama Panchayat under this Act, unless appeal is provided elsewhere in this Act, may within thirty days from the date of such order appeal to the Executive Officer.] (2) The Appellate Authority may after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard and after such enquiry as it deems fit, decide the appeal and its decision shall be final. (3) Any appeal under sub-sec. (1) pending before the Zilla Parishad shall on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 stand transferred to the Assistant Commissioner and such appeal shall be decided by him as if it has been filed before him." 10. Sec. 269 of the said Act is a remedy available to any person aggrieved by a resolution of the Gram Panchayat to file an appeal against the said resolution of the Gram Panchayat. 11. Suo-motu powers of the kind that the Executive Officer has now exercised is not the one that is conferred under Sec. 269 of the said Act. Therefore, the Executive Officer has usurped certain jurisdiction unavailable to him under Sec. 269 of the said Act and has acted beyond what he is empowered to do under the statute. 11. Suo-motu powers of the kind that the Executive Officer has now exercised is not the one that is conferred under Sec. 269 of the said Act. Therefore, the Executive Officer has usurped certain jurisdiction unavailable to him under Sec. 269 of the said Act and has acted beyond what he is empowered to do under the statute. Therefore, on this ground that the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat has exercised certain imaginary jurisdiction under Sec. 269 of the said Act and has cancelled the khata which right that the petitioners had in their favour right from 1995, is on the face of it erroneous. 12. Learned Senior counsel would emphasize on the fact that the khata was not issued in the favour of the petitioners without any enquiry or examination. It is in the year 1995, when the third respondent became a separate panchayat, all the documents of the petitioners and the like were taken note of and then the names of the petitioners were entered into in the Demand Register. All these factors have been conveniently ignored by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat at the time when he conducted farce of an enquiry as is found in the order impugned. 13. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has filed his objections would seek to take this Court through the objections to justify action of the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat contending that he has infact enquired into the matter and passed orders and the same is in accordance with law. The said submission deserves to be rejected and is rejected. 14. The submission of the learned Senior counsel sounds acceptance as the order passed by the Executive Officer apart from it being without jurisdiction does not bear consideration of the aforesaid facts and the kind of enquiry that he conducts prior to passage of the said order as contrary to law. 15. The documents would on its perusal indicate that the entire episode of passing the order in a hurried manner is due to the communication of the Lokayukta. Communication of the Lokayukta to take a particular action would not mean that the impugned order would be passed in blatant contravention of law. The Lokayukta had directed submission of a report after enquiring into the matter. Communication of the Lokayukta to take a particular action would not mean that the impugned order would be passed in blatant contravention of law. The Lokayukta had directed submission of a report after enquiring into the matter. The Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat travels beyond what was directed by the Lokayukta, by firstly not submitting a report of the enquiry and by a issuing the impugned official memorandum cancelling the khata that stood in the names of the petitioners. 16. Therefore, the entire exercise right from submission of a report to the Lokayukta after conducting an enquiry in a manner known to law after hearing the petitioners will have to be undertaken by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat and the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat shall not initiate any proceedings after conducting an enquiry himself, but will take recourse to manner known to law after submission of the report to the Lokayukta. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. All the Writ Petitions are allowed in part. ii. The impugned Official Memorandum in all these cases stand quashed. iii. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the respondents for conduct of an enquiry, in accordance with law. iv. The petitioners shall be heard before submission of a report to the Lokayukta as was directed. v. The enquiry shall be conducted and concluded by the respondents within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. vi. The observations made during the course of the order shall be borne in mind while conducting an enquiry. vii. It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced upon the merit of the claim of the petitioners. viii. All the contentions of both the petitioners and the respondents are kept open.