CHIKKACHOWDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order dtd. 25/5/2015 passed by the third respondent- Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Shidlaghatta. In the impugned order the Executive Officer has held that the khatha registered in the office of the Ganjigunte Grama Panchayath in favour of the petitioners' father appears to be on the basis of doubtful documents. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits there is no mention of the provision under which the Executive Officer has passed the impugned order.

(2.) When a question was posed to the learned Counsel for the sixth and seventh respondents, who approached the Executive Officer, as to the provision of law under which the parties approached the Executive Officer, learned Counsel is unable to point out to any such provision. This matter is of the year 2015. Statement of objections have not been filed at the hands of the contesting respondents.

(3.) On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there could be only one provision of law under which the contesting respondents could have approached the Executive Officer i.e., under Sec. 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). The provision enables any person aggrieved by any original order of the Grama Panchayath to file an appeal before the Executive Officer within a period of thirty days from the date of such order. Admittedly, the grievance of the contesting respondents before the Executive Officer is in respect of the registration of the khatha in favour of the petitioners' father. Undoubtedly, the khatha was registered in favour of the petitioners' father way back in the year 2004. The petitioner's father had applied for a building license and building license was granted in his favour way back in the year 2006. It is the contention of the petitioners that they have put up constructions in terms of the building license issued by the competent authority. Moreover, it appears that seventh respondent had also filed a suit in O.S.No.80/2004 against the original writ petitioner seeking a decree of permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed on 27/10/2006. It appears that the regular appeal preferred in R.A.No.107/2006 was also dismissed on 16/3/2012. That being the position, even if the contesting respondents had invoked the provisions contained in Sec. 269 of the Act, calling in question the khatha registered in favour of the petitioners' father, the Executive Officer could not have entertained such appeal. The revenue-authorities are not permitted to go into disputed questions of title.