NARASAMMA Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged an order dtd. 19/6/2015 passed by the respondent No.1 in case No.VPC:MELMANAVI:04/1999-2000, by which the name of Haragadde Grama Panchayath was continued in the property register in respect of Khaneshumari Nos.18/1 and 37/1.

(2.) The petitioner claims that Khaneshumari Nos.18/1 and 37/1 situate at Dyavasandra village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, was purchased by her husband at a public auction held by the Sub-Division Office, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, Bengaluru, which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District on 28/9/1948. Subsequent thereto, her husband had sold portions of the said land and thereafter the remaining land was made over to the name of the petitioner. When things stood thus, the respondent Nos.4 to 13 challenged the revenue entries in the name of the petitioner in an appeal under Sec. 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. The respondent No.1 in terms of the order dtd. 7/7/2000 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.4 to 13 and ordered continuation of the name of the Panchayath in the tax demand register. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5563/2001. This Court in terms of the order dtd. 14/9/2005 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the respondent No.1 and remitted the case back to the respondent No.1 for re- consideration. After such remand, the respondent No.1 unmindful of the documents placed before him, which indicated the name of the petitioner in the tax demand register for the year 1991-92, 1992-93, 2005-06 and 2007-08, again confirmed the earlier order dtd. 7/7/2000 and continued the name of the Panchayath in the tax demand register. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that certain persons had attempted to interfere with her possession of the property and she filed O.S.No.129/1993, which was dismissed. An appeal filed in R.A.No.28/2006 was also dismissed, against which R.S.A.No.2916/2007 was filed, which too was dismissed. Learned counsel contended that the civil proceedings were decided against the petitioner since the land in question was endowed to the village office of Jodi and the petitioner and her predecessors had not filed any application seeking re-grant under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (henceforth referred to as "Act of 1954" for short). Learned counsel contended that since there was a sale certificate dtd. 12/11/1948 in the name of husband of the petitioner, the khatha of the said property, which earlier stood in the name of the petitioner could not have been altered or entered in the name of the Panchayath at the behest of the private respondents.