Sri K N Manjunatha vs The President on 11 September, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE um DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 200914.e,V'O»._:'.__

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.vENu;;QPAL.A~'GQ'w1jrS.ii  V¥:"  

WRIT PETITION NO.9379 OF    7

BETWEEN:

Sri. K.N.Manjunatha, '  ~_ 
1570. Late Nanjappa @ Nanjegowda,  
Aged 43 years,   _  
R/0. Kirangur viltage,    V    ' 
K.ShettyhaHi Hobth. , _   f   
Mandva District.        v

     '.   ...PETITIONER
(By Sri. Kempeg'o*N§i'§ fo'i*§:.;SrE.$€,V.=Nara'sém'han Adv.,)
AND:   A
1. The Pres_EdenxtO,""..M " _ 
_ Zilla P"a§Tc'hayath,''' ._ V
 'M._.23nd=y_§i':~EDf:s_tric:t,  ----- 
'V.'Mar":d.ya. '_ 

2. Tlie E-5<_e<1:ut4i:v'e'V_ O~ffie'er

  Taluweanchayarh,

_Sriran"gapai:ha Taiuk,

v%OA"«.,..4 M__;andya mstrict.

  Grama Panchayath,

Kira rig air,

 ..._'"K.Shettyha||E hobli,
-._4:S-rirangapatna taluk,



Mandya District.
Represented by Its Secretary.

4. Sra. Krishnappa 4
8/0. late Channappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/o. Kirnagur viilage,

K.Shettyha|ia hobll,   
Srirangapatna taiuk, 

Mandya District.

  

(By Sri.B.J.Somayaji for R1;-.T*~Sri.SL'iti,_Bhat  'R4, = '

Smt.M.C.Nagashr_ee E-ICGP for R2 8:3)  ' _  _

THIS WRIT PETITION EILIEO.'_iiuNoEiR_IA'RTIcLEAS 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF1i\EDIAE=i?RA¥I_i\E,G»»TO QUASH THE
ORDER AT A!\EX--D, OATEO.25_.5c.2oO7 SPA~SSE--I);I=w THE R1 IN
APPEAL BEARING NQ.2§;'.1_99f3-ZOGQ. _  I « 

THIS PETITION ..C{;;ii*4;IN'(f§_:Q.N-...FO.R HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THEfO:yLtIOwINc3':~HsjVvr. I   

Accorciing tO:thVe'pétitioner, property bearing Janjar No.45
(nevi?3\iOV..'1AIS9Tania.I_146)VyWa«ssesSment No.18SA/1B with house

consitruictecii' t:He.reOn,.:'.1situated at Kirangur Village, §<.Shettyhai1i

 Of "Sriran'g.a§patna Taiuk, Mandya District, situated within

Vwyadyministsfaitive jurisdiction of the third respondent Grama

ii".:"Pa'n.ciI-awyatyi belongs to one Smt. Sannamma, W/o Ningegowda.

 ..._petitiOner claims that, he is the grandson Of Said

I

,»



Sannamma. The assessment extract of the said property

produced as Annexure--A ie, for the assessment year 

shows that, Smt. Sannamma is the owner and 

property. Petitioner contends that, the fou,rt_h responjd:ent"Vi:s'riot:it '*~ 

a relative of said Smt. Sannamma and ti,i'at,.:' heia "st'ransg_e'i=:;,a_A«

Though the 4"' respondent is neith_er_a family,mieni?be.r_,_no3r a 

relative of Smt. Sannamma and   possession
of the property, it is contended. t'iq'gL,4t%f_respondent in
collusion with the third'~respondent, c_j'ot;:_hi's.'Vnarii,ie'Lentered in the
assessment extract: Annexure--B
shows that, in we Ningegowda, the

name of the fourth respfo_.n'den't_yVhas been entered.

2. _ Smt. fl"Sa_nnarnm'a challenged the said entry as at
A'nnexurei..Qaghefore the""s'e'cond respondent, by filing an appeal

under   Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (Act

 short»); Thellsiecond respondent, after consideration, allowed

_..l,l'_j':»l*ie_'s»aid appeal and cancelied the katha made in the name of the

1"-info-iiyrthvrespondent, which is evident from the order dated

 as at Annexure--C. \)



3. Aggrieved by the said order of the secoynd

respondent, the fourth respondent filed an appeal before__'the'f.irst'i.V

respondent under S.237(3) of the Act. First  if

allowed the said appeai on 25.05.07. Thefiiordeif  a;t.Adnfn_e§.the"order"'~at"'.

An nexu re-«D.

4. The fourth respondrenyt 5Ai3/H99 f0!' 6
decree of declaration of Titie,a'nd--  against
Smt. Sannammapirfiir.jj{§rinci'pa1 Civii Judge (Jr.
Dn.) & 3Mi=c  hpgfakkweiiafiimed therein that, the
property canie to grant made by a competent
authority andféthait  and enjoyment of the
same. Aftefrfythe dea"thV_VVoVf Srnt...'Sannamma, the petitioner herein

was im:p1.e;adedA.past-he 15' legai representative of defendant Smt.

 Sannfai*ri'rn_a«. VV"ii¥.'fit.e_r'V~tri"ai, the suit was dismissed by a Judgment

V7?I_anr3V Decree  07.04.07. Aggrieved by the said Liudgment

4_;andV...,ijecree,the fourth respondent has fiied R.A. 42/07 in the

 Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Srirangapatna and the appeai is

 i9



5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsei for the respondents and perused thewohwrit

papers.

6. Learned counsei for the petitioner contendedA_:'th_at, 

the appeal preferred before the 

rnaintainable and the first respondent by 4ass'uvming,,'}'i;ist'ificati,o'n'i V

not vested in him, has passed the""i'rn'pLigned"order. xfiiltwwlwas
contended that, the impugned: being all nuliity,
is also contrary to the decision of  O.S. 50/99

and hence, cannot be~'sipsta'ined. :; 

7. Onv'7th'e«  Bhat, learned counsel
appearing forthe foJrth.resp'on'dent contended that, the appeal
file'dV"by,  S,a,nnva.mma'b'ef'oVre the second respondent was not

maint'a,i__n'ab_le.,.  ought to have been preferred within

:i.i3.G'»,days frond the"d'1ate, the entry at Annexure-B was made and

_.itfhe«.i3'i3peal hauling not been preferred within the prescribed time

 lirnit, respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the

haxppepasl and pass the orders. Alternatively, learned counsel

9»:



submitted that, if Annexure--D is to be quashed, it may be made

clear that, the rights of the parties shall get regulated as 

Judgment and Decree that may be passed in RA.  _

on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. i?_>_n..,)__at 8;"-ErangTap'atna., if 

8. Any person aggrieved by anyoi5i_gi~nal1*or'der of:V'i_t.hfel1.i_:

Grama Panchayat, passed under thel_pi'=:),yisior'a-si of th'e'Al_<ure----C byV"1"ilVVin'gyth'e_ap.lpea'l*~finder S.237(1) of the Act. Sub-
section (2) of..S.264l9 provides'-th"at the decision of the Appellate

Authority tinder"Se'c_269(i)"'of the Act, shall be final. Hence, no

. appea"ir.._cot.tlVdrc preferred by the fourth respondent

Vi,:a"ga.Enst theyorder:i'atfAnnexure-C before the first respondent.

'*lfirst._r-espond'e.nt has entertained the appeal of the fourth

  referring to provisions contained in sub-section

l

'J'.-'



the matter was to attain finality,

he can approach the__ third

respondent for necessary reliefs.

In the result, I pass the following:

 

ORDER