JITENDRA SHIVAJI SOUNDALAGE Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these writ petitions the petitioners are questioning the orders passed by the respondent No.1/ Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi District, who while invoking the provisions of Sec. 306 of The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 passed the impugned orders remanding the matter back to the Chief Officer, Town Panchayat of Chinchali, to decide the dispute of title in respect of Rs. No.400, 2004 and 1015/1. The Deputy Commissioner has also directed the petitioners and the respondent/ Town Panchayat to maintain status quo in respect of the possession of the disputed property till the matter is decided by the Chief Officer. In WP No.103709/2021 in respect of property bearing TPC No.1014 of Chinchali, there is an interim order passed by this Court in respect of all further proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners in all these matters submits that basically Sec 306 of the Municipalities Act could be invoke only by a person who is affected by an order or resolution of the Municipality or execution of which is unlawful or causing or is likely to cause injury or annoy to the public or would lead to breach of the peace. Under such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to suspend the execution or prohibit doing anything thereof. Sub-Sec. (2) would further mandate that if such an order of suspension is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, he is required to forthwith forward the order to the Government and to the Director of the Municipal Administration and to the Municipal Council which is affected, a copy of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. If the Government receives such an order, the Government is empowered to rescind the order or direct that it shall continue in force with or without modification, consequently or till such period as it deems fit. However, before the Government could pass such an order, the concerned Municipal Council is required to be heard and a reasonable opportunity of showing cause is to be given to the Municipal Council. Learned counsel submits that this position has been reiterated in many cases, including the case of Sri. N.S.Gangadhar V/s. State of Karnataka and others in WP No.54720/2016 dtd. 11/7/2017 and a decision of a Division Bench in the case of Sri.K.S.Iswara Goud and Others V/s. The Town Panchayath, Kottur and Others in WP. No.2079/2017 dtd. 10/12/2018.

(3.) Moreover, it is submitted that in both these cases since the petitioners were aggrieved by the action of the Municipality, original suits in OS. No.847/2015 and 644/2016 were filed before the Jurisdictional Civil Court and OS No.897/2016 has been decreed in favor of the plaintiff while directing the respondent/ Town Panchayat and any person claiming under them, not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. In OS No.847/2015 the undertaking of the Chief Officer of the Municipality was recorded to the effect that, they will not interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the said suit was disposed of and the said suit was dismissed as not pressed on 26/4/2018. The learned counsel further submits that at any rate the petitioner is in possession of the lands in question by virtue of registered sale deeds and subsequent registered documents. In fact it is sought to be contended that there are enough material on record to show that the revenue authorities such as the Revenue Inspector have given a report stating that the lands in question were standing in the name of private parties, even before the Gram Panchayat was brought into existence. The properties were given Gramtana Numbers and the same were registered in the records of the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, when the entire area was brought under the jurisdiction of the Town Panchayat, the names of the owners were sought to be continued in the records of the Town Panchayat. However, at the instance of one Sri. Ankush Limbaji Jadhav who has been arraigned as respondent No.4 in WP No.103054/2021, the respondent Town Panchayat passed an resolution dtd. 13/7/2016 declaring that the lands in question are the properties belonging to the Town Panchayat and therefore the Councilors of the Municipality passed a resolution directing that the names of the petitioners or their predecessors have to be removed from the Khata Register and the name of Town Panchayat should be registered in the records.