ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. Petitioner claims to be a person who has right as a legal heir to an extent of 3 acres of land granted in favour of his grandfather situated in Belur Village, Badami Taluk, Bagalkot District in terms of Annexure-A, dated 5-2-1945. The purpose of the grant in terms of this order was to put up a building to house a ginning factory and the grant also fixed an occupancy price of Rs. 210/- and an annual ground rent of Rs. 37 and 14 Annas computed at the rate of 1/2 pie per square yard subject to certain further conditions.
2. In respect of such land it appears the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot District had initiated action for cancellation of the grant which resulted in the order dated 14-12-1998 cancelling the grant. Petitioner had challenged that order by filing an appeal to the Karnataka Tribunal. The appeal also came to be dismissed. Thereafter petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 17769 of 2001.
3. The writ petition was allowed as per Order dated 24th October, 2002 (copy at Annexure-C). The orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal were quashed and the matter was remanded reserving liberty to the landowner, namely ‘the Government, for recovering the arrears of rent as also the land revenue.
4. The Gram Panchayat, Belur Village was also a party to the said writ petition. This Court noticed that possession of the petitioner was only that of a lessee. The Gram Panchayat which was a party to this proceeding taking note of this observation of this Court passed resolutions dated 24-6-2003 and 28-10-2003 respectively (copies at Annexures-D and E) and it appears pursuant to such resolutions the Panchayat had altered in its records indicating the petitioner to be a person who is a lessee (Anubhavdar) and conveniently showed its own name as against the owner’s column. It is such resolutions and the consequent action that the pentitioner has challenged in these writ petitions.
5. Sri S.B. Hebballi, learned Counsel for the petitoner contended that the 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat could not have acted arbitrarily and to its own convenience by entering its own name as against the owner’s column. Learned Counsel has pointed out that this Court had not declared the Gram Panchayat, Belur as owner of the land in question and the resolutions and the subsequent action for showing the name of the 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat as owner is illegal, abuse of the powers vested in the Panchayat inasmuch as the Panchayat itself is the custodian of the records and as such the resolutions and consequent actions are required to be quashed and the name of the petitioner be directed to be restored as was found in the records earlier and if at all any action is to be taken, petitioner should be put on notice and only on such notice action can be taken. Sri Hebballi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the resolutions and the action taken was even without notice to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity of hearing.
6. When an elected body like the Gram Panchayat, Belur passes resolutions it is not incumbent upon the Panchayat to issue notice to all concerned persons who claim that they are likely to be affected by the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any statutory provisions which requires issue of such notices.
7. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the principles of natural justice demands issue of notice to all affected persons. It is a little difficult to accept this submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be put on the level of an owner who can claim to be an affected person, particularly in the light of the observations made by this Court in W.P. No. 17769 of 2001 as this Court categorically recorded that possession of the petitioner is only that of a lessee. If the Panchayat had shown earlier that the petitioner is also owner of the land and not merely Anubhavdar and if the Panchayat had sought to correct the wrong depiction in terms of the resolutions pursuant to the observations of this Court made in the order passed in W.P. No. 17769 of 2001 filed by the petitioner and the subsequent action it cannot be said that it is either illegal or in violation of principles of natural justice. The resolutions were passed to bring the record inconformity with the observation/finding of this Court in W.P. No. 17769 of 2001. Petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent are parties to these writ petitions. Therefore, it cannot even be said the resolutions or the subsequent action is in violation of principles of natural justice.
8. However, what is submitted by Sri Hebballi, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Gram Panchayat could not have put its name in the owners column by itself and on its own, but it could have shown the Government as against the owners column.
9. This matter is not the concern of the petitioner, but is a matter between the Panchayat and the Government. At any rate, the right, title and interest to any property is not merely depending on the entries in the Panchayat records but is a matter which is definitely required to be established before the Civil Court on seeking a suitable declaration and by impleading necessary parties. If the petitioner is able to get such right the records automatically will have to be brought inconformity with the said declaration given by the Civil Court. There is no occasion for this Court to issue a writ as prayed for.
10. In the circumstances writ petitions are dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail all the remedies under the Statute itself or even by seeking a suitable declaration in respect of his civil right before a Civil Court.