.. 1 ..
IN 'l'HE HEGH COURT' 0}? KARNATAKA AT' BANGALORE
1;>A'1'1':«:1) THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER,
]BEi?OI€E
'l'HE 1~i()N'BLE MR.JUS'I'iCE; RAVI n«:~ALI§&A?f'iét _ V: "
WRIT PETI"l"iON NO.3635 1 {)9 :2£1{:)4{L..I34~i§ESjV 3 ¢ . 1'
BENNEEN:
1 '?.DHA_Ri'»1'A(.§HA'1'RA?TV(CH{3U'LTRY)
ADI JA;M}E3I€1"'AVA' KULA %
BA4'\Ei3AVARA'--4.SANIIFEIi, MUTHATHI
rmemek HQBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK
'MANDYA _[")'i&"I'R}Z(2»'I'.
'"«:.R:EPRESENT§€_if)'BY rrs MEMBER
% _ sh::PLF1'rA1A1~1,AGE.s6 YEARS
BALEHQNNIGA VILLAGE, HALGUR HOBL:
IvI'AL.A'\.'AL«LI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
PETYFIONER
(By "Iv! RAVI & RAVI, ADVOCA'1'ES)
% THE STATE OF KAR'NA'I'AKA
BYTTSC3HEFSECRETARY
VHHHHHKSOUEHA,
BANGALORE
".3...
2 ADHYAKSHA
THE ZJLLA PAN CHAYAT
zvmwma DESTRICYI',
MANDYA.
3 ADHYAKSHA
THE TALUK PANCHAYAT
MALAVALLI TALUK, MAL_AVALE.I
MANDYA DISTRICT.
4 THE EXECUTIVE ~.oFFiCER j'
MALAVALLI TALLIE; PAN(;HAYA'1' *
MALAVALLI 'I'ALUK',-MALAVA.-LLI,- f;V
MANDYADIs'rRIc:1t * ; «V
5 ':i'HE
(3<RAMAPA1\l'GHAYAT" _
BYA_DARAHA!;LI_ VILLAGE
MALAVALLl~TALUK;
- 6;' sxji M_UTHAIA.H «
- S';'fi.L;aTE DASAPPA
% M.UT1F¥AT}IE VILLAGE
.MAmxIALLI TALUK,
MANEJYA DISTRICT. RESPONDENFS
(By smt::M.<3.NAGAsHREE,HcGP, FOR R 1
. ADVOCATE, Sri B.J.SOMAYAJI, FOR R-2
S:t"§« M.I....GOWI)A & Sri 'l'.K.ASHOKA,
_ ADVOCATES, FOR C/R-6)
iii
' THIS WRIT PETITION ES FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 85 227 OF THE CONS'TF1'U'FION OF' INDIA PRAYINC}
TO QUASH V1DE ANNEXUREJ DATED 30. 10.2003
PASSED BY THE ADHYAKSHA, ZILLA PANCHAYAT.
Q,/Lr'
-3...
THIS PETITEON COMING ON" FOR HEARiN{}.__THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLC)WING:- in
ORDER
The case of the petitioner iefilat si’te’Pio;v1iJ;E~::khatiia; = .
No.14 Ineasuring 30′ x 26′ feetéur,”i{i’a1fl’iafi
village, Halaguru Hobli, Mniayafliii ‘I?-s’ai}1.11″‘1§ii’ttasivan1y Gowda, has been
included’.,_ made a representation to the
rectify the said error. The Taiuk
» VPane1_~§33rat.,i:V””by virtue of the Resolution passed on
H itgzek a decision to rectify the error by making
a modification to include the name of the
V ‘ » ‘petauoeer. The village Panehayat thereafter vitie
Aiijfiesiiolntion dated 10-s—-2oo2 complied with the
fiesolufion dated 28-3-2002 and thereafter the name of
the petitioner was correctly entered in the revenue
am
-4-
records. The 633 re-spendent claiming to be the Qwnetr cf
the site approached the Zifla Panchayat ~
Nc>.31/22002»-03 without makm g the
party. The Adhyaksha of thev.Zii’£a4 «Pa;i¢1 :aya:”by’_:rir:fiée ;
of the impugned order dated’.3{3’§ IOV~2i)0;§
appeal directing Village I5afiehayet te ‘e13tfer”‘%§ie”nam’V: e 61′?
the 6″! respondent; i:1.Vtheéreve’i;11ie’ ~r.eco;rflt1s;’AA Aégfieved by
the same, the p1’CS6I;i’t#
2e for the petitioner submitted
that lilerits of the case the ilnpugled
paseed-V 211* respondent is opposed to
‘ ; 55£:C’£i Ofl of the Kazmataka Panchayat Raj Act He
H * Judgxnent of this Court, in the ease of Szri
I{;$..§§1§GARAJA RAO vs. CHIKMAGALUR ZIZLLA
L’ ~ ‘PANCHAYAT AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2004
KCCR 2547 to contend that the Ahdyaksfia of Ziiia
Panchayat has no power to invoke Sew 7(3)
.. 5 _
of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, while passfingfile
impugned ortier. V V V.
3. Sri ‘I’.K.Ashoka, learneel
respondent No.6 submitted’ that there is L.
impugned order that (rails the
petition may be _
V4, ” I learned counsel for the
petitioner -§SIi;_t;FJ.;egash1ee, learned Government
for respondent No.1. and Srti
L’ counsel for R-6. The respondents
remained absent.
5. The only question for consideration herein is
‘ es to the power of Zilia Panchayat to pass the impugned
order in terms of Section 237(3) of the Act. This Court
r—-._
in the decision referred to supra has eomeqfizxthe
conclusion that the Adhyaksha of Zifia Panchayat has
no jurisdiction or power to entertain the app.-§’:a1:”‘-the
manner that has been done in passing
order. The pcawer of Aclhyaksha» of’
setting aside the entries is
vested in him.
‘reasnns, I pass the foliowing
ordeI{‘::s,,.’ r ‘ V V ‘ 4 ‘
‘Fhue_ orde1’=__ 30.10.2003 vide Annexure-J
133} ‘A 2116 respondent in case
.:I§Io;P?Kv:v{}I3?ib’.’!:’;C34:AppeaL,(’31/2002-2003 is hereby
~. cm. Sd/u
rsk