MANJE GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Quashing the impugned order dtd. 16/1/2014 passed by the President, Zilla panchayath, Mandya District, Mandya in proceedings No.JiPanMan Appeal NO.7/2002-03 vide Annexure-A and consequently issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dtd. 7/3/2002 C5 vA..Dg.:83:2001-02 passed by the President, Taluk Panchayath, Nagamangala Taluk, Nagamangala vide Annexure-L b. Issue such other order or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case including costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the orders at Annexure-A in Appeal No.7/2023 dtd. 16/1/2014 passed by the Zilla Panchayat at Annexure-A and the order dtd. 7/3/2002 passed by the President, Taluka Panchayat at Annexure-L are without jurisdiction inasmuch as neither of them have powers under Sec. 237 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 to cancel the katha issued by the respondent No.4, Nagamangala taluka panchayat in favour of the father of the petitioner who had already deceased prior to the order being passed.

(3.) The contention of Sri.G.S.Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no such powers vested with the respondents under Sec. 237 of the Act for cancellation of the katha. If at all appropriate proceedings are to be taken under Sec. 269, which not having been done, these powers could not have been exercised by the authorities. That apart, the delay which has been caused in challenging the said order is on account of no particular information being made available to the petitioner about the next date the matter would be taken inasmuch as on several occasions there was no sitting of respondent No.2 and the petitioner did not even know the next date, furthermore the order passed by respondent No.2 was not even communicated to the petitioner. It is only when the 5th respondent sought to assert his right on the property that the petitioner came to know of the claim made by respondent No.5 being under the impugned order and thereafter certified copies were obtained and above petition filed.