JUDGMENT
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioner-Chikajala Gram Panchayath, Chikajala Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, represented by its Secretary, has sought for a direction to the respondents-authorities to consider the representation submitted by petitioner vide Annexures-J and K and to investigate the matter regarding the manipulation, fabrication of hakku patras and to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against respondent Nos. 4 to 20. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the concerned revenue authorities not to issue any document by way of katha in favour of respondents-4 to 20 based on fabricated hakku Patras, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, land bearing Sy. No. 116, measuring 6 acres 22 guntas of Tarabanahalli village is a gomal land. When things stood thus, respondents-4 to 20 have managed to get the Hakku patras in their favour by manipulation under the Ashraya Scheme. The Tahsildar Devenahalli has issued the alleged hakku patras to respondents-4 to 20 as early as on 19-11-1991. Be that as it may. The matter has been placed before the committee of the Gram Panchayath to restore the land back to provide basic amenities to the village, since the land belongs to gram panchayath. The petitioner has contended that, the Gram Panchayath has passed resolution to that effect and for seeking investigation of the matter regarding the manipulation, fabrication of hakku patras and to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the officers who are involved in granting hakku patras to respondents-4to 20. Further, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that, petitioner-Gram Panchayath is redressing is grievances several times before the Tahsildar, Deputy Commissioner, but the same has not been considered by them. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to give representations to the respondents-1 to 3 through the Secretary, Chikajala Gram Panchayath vide Annexures-J and K dated 10-8-2006 and 5-10-2007 respectively. The respondents-1 to 3 have neither considered nor taken any decision or disposed of the representations given by petitioner so far. In view of inaction on the part of the respondents-1 to 3 in not initiating the proceedings and in not considering the representation given by the Gram Panchayath, petitioner felt necessitated to present this writ petition, seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.
3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner-Sri M. shivaprakash at considerable length of time. After careful evaluation of the entire materials available on record, including the representations submitted by petitioner to the respondents-1 to 3 vide Annexures-J and K, it emerges that, petitioner-Gram Panchayath has passed the resolution for initiating appropriate proceedings regarding issuing the hakku patras in favour of respondents- 4 to 20. The said hakku patras have been issued by the 3rd respondent as early as in the year 1991 in favour of respondents-4 to 20.
4. The petitioner has not chosen to assail the correctness of the hakku patras issued by 3rd respondent before the competent authority as provided under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Instead of that, petitioner being the Gram Panchayath has submitted the representations straightway to the respondents-1 to 3, that too, without processing the said representation through the relevant provisions of the Panchayath Raj Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that, petitioner has brought this fact to the notice of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath who is the Principal Chief Officer of the Gram Panchayaths of the district and straightway, petitioner has submitted the representations to the respondents-1 to 3.
5. The petitioner without redressing the grievance though proper channel as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Panchayath Raj Act, he cannot give representations directly to the Revenue Department for initiating proceedings and for taking appropriate action regarding issuing the hakku patras to respondents-4 to 20, that too, when the said hakku patras were issued in the year 1991. It is the case of the petitioner that, Gram Panchayath has passed a resolution in the year 2002 and from 2002 to 2007 and is redressing the grievance before respondents-1 to 3. The said submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has no substance, nor it is permissible. If the petitioner has got any grievance, it is open for the petitioner to redress its grievance through proper channel which is competent to find out whether the hakku patras issued in favour of respondents-4 to 20 are in accordance with the guidelines issued by the government from time to time. It is significant to note that, petitioner intentionally and deliberately has not chosen to challenge the hakku patras alleged to have been issued in favour of respondents-4 to 20 by 3rd respondent and without assailing the correctness of the said hakku patras, petitioner has straighway submitted representations in the light of the resolution passed by the Grama Panchayath. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the prayers sought for by petitioner is mis conceived in nature and it is liable to be rejected at threshold.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly it is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to redress his grievance before the competent authority as provided under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, if so advised or if need arises.