K. P. MAHESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent No.1. Notice to the other respondents are not necessary for the following reason. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned endorsement dtd. 13/12/2022 at Annexure-F issued by respondent No.2- Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath, Periyapattana declining to entertain a petition under Sec. 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

(2.) The petitioner appears to have approached respondent No.3-Panchayath Development Officer, Kamalapura Gram Panchayat seeking transfer of katha in respect of the land in question to the name of his father on the strength of a registered sale deed of the year 1944. The Panchayath Development Officer appears to have issued a notice on 29/9/2022 to the petitioner to appear at the spot for a spot inspection. Thereafter, a report is said to have been submitted to the Tahsildar, stating that respondent No.4 and one Sri Shivalinge Gowda have been in possession of the property for more than 55 to 60 years and that it would not be possible to enter the name of the petitioner's father in the assessment list of the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 269 of the Act before the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath. The Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat issued the impugned endorsement dtd. 13/12/2022 declining to entertain the petition and directed the petitioner to approach a competent Civil Court, since the matter is in the nature of a civil dispute.

(3.) Although learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to submit that no plausible reasons are found for declining to entertain the petition filed under Sec. 269, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasoning of the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath that the matter brought before the Executive Officer is in the nature of a Civil dispute is sufficient to hold that no infirmity can be found in the impugned endorsement. Time and again, this Court has held that disputed questions of title cannot be decided by the Revenue Authorities, which would also hold good to the officers manning the local bodies. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is required to approach a Civil Court and get a declaration of title. As and when, a declaration is obtained by the petitioner, he would be entitled to have his name entered in the records of the respondent-Gram Panchayath. Ordered Accordingly. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands dismissed.