NARAYANAPPA S.L. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged an order dtd. 28/7/2011 passed by the respondent No.2 in a proceeding under Sec. 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. They have also sought for a direction to the respondent No.3 to continue their names in the khatha register in respect of the property bearing khatha Nos.2 and 3 as it stood prior to the orders passed by the respondent No.2.

(2.) The petitioners claim that they are the owners of the twin sites bearing khatha Nos.2 and 3 lying within the limits of the respondent No.3. They claim to be the children of Lingappa, who purchased the aforesaid sites. The said Lingappa had a brother named Andanaiah. It is claimed that the respondent No.4 was an officer in the Village Panchayath and his father was member of the Taluk Panchayath. It is alleged that the respondent No.4 attempted to interfere with their possession, which compelled the petitioners to file O.S.No.80/2005 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and J.M.F.C., Kunigal, for perpetual injunction. When things stood thus, the respondent No.4 approached the respondent No.2 to disturb the revenue entries that stood in the names of the petitioners by filing an appeal in VPC No.12/2008-09. The petitioners appeared before the respondent No.2 and informed him about the pendency of O.S.No.80/2005 and therefore requested him to postpone the issue till the disposal of O.S.No.80/2005. The respondent No.2 accepted the request of the petitioners and kept the matter in abeyance till the disposal of O.S.No.80/2005. It is claimed that after the incumbent officer of respondent No.2 was transferred, the respondent No.4 colluded with him and got revived the proceedings in VPC No.12/2008- 09. The respondent No.2 reopened the case, which was kept in abeyance, without notice to the petitioners and proceeded to pass an order dtd. 28/7/2011 holding that the properties that stood in the name of petitioners lay within a survey number and therefore cannot be assessed to tax in the property and tax demand register and directed the removal of the names of petitioners. The petitioners have, therefore, filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid order and for other reliefs.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the names of the petitioners was entered in the property register from the year 1973 and onwards and therefore, the respondent No.2 could not have disturbed such revenue entries at the behest of the respondent No.4, that too in the year 2011. He further contended that once the proceedings were placed on the backburner until disposal of O.S.No.80/2005, the respondent No.2 should not have taken it up even before the suit was disposed. He submitted that the respondent No.4 was interested in some other property, which was a revenue land, while the properties in question were properties lying within the limits of the Panchayath. He, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the respondent No.2 be set at naught.