LAWS(KAR)-2023-5-432

K. M. CHIKKEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On May 26, 2023
K. M. Chikkegowda Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dtd. 13/9/2017 passed by the second respondent- Adayksha of the Zilla Panchayat, Bangalore Rural District, rejecting the application filed in I.A.No.II under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the instance of the petitioner, the names of respondents No.6 to 9 were ordered to be removed from the demand register maintained by respondent No.5 - Koira Gram Panchayat, on accepting the contention of the petitioner that there was no family partition in respect of the house property situated within the limits of Gram Panchayat which was earlier standing in the name of the petitioner's grandfather Sri Subbanna.

(3.) Being aggrieved of the Official Memorandum dtd. 25/7/2016 passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Devanahalli, the contesting respondents herein approached the Adhyaksha of the Zilla Panchayat in Appeal No.BRZP/Appeal/01/2016-17. During the course of the appeal, the petitioner herein filed the application in I.A.No.II under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to implead himself in the appeal on the ground that the order impugned before the Adakysha of the Zilla Panchayat, was a resolution passed by the Taluk Panchayat, at the instance of the petitioner herein followed by issuance of an Official Memorandum dtd. 25/7/2016 deleting the names of the contesting respondents herein from the demand register and therefore, he was a necessary party to the proceedings. However, the Adayaksha of the Zilla Panchayat has passed the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that though the petitioner initiated the proceedings to have the names of the contesting respondents herein deleted from the demand register, nevertheless, resolution was passed by the Taluk panchayat, not at the instance of the petitioner. Learned Counsel submits that this opinion of the Adhyaksha of the Zilla Panchayat is contrary to the records.