KEMPAIAH ALIAS CHIKKAMOTA Vs. ADHYAKSHA, ZILLA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considering a representation made by the petitioner seeking change of entry in respect of property situated at Yaleyur Village, Kottathi Hobli, Mandya Taluk, respondent 3-Panchayat, having passed a resolution the entry was made on 20-11-2000, in the name of the petitioner. Challenge to the said resolution made by respondents 4 to 8, in Appeal No. 17 of 2010-2011 before the Taluk Panchayat, Mandya Taluk, failed on account of dismissal of the appeal on 14-10-2010. Respondent 4 having questioned the said order in Appeal No. 67 of 2010-2011 before the respondent 1 and the same having been allowed on 25-10-2013 vide Annexure-A, this writ petition was filed, to quash the order as at Annexure-A and grant the consequential reliefs. Sri H.B. Chandrashekar, learned Advocate, by relying upon the decision in the case of K.S. Nagaraja Rao v Chickmagalur Zilla Panchayat and Others,2000 4 KCCR 2547, contended that the Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat having not interfered with the resolution of the Grama Panchayat and the impugned order passed by the Taluk Panchayat being an order of dismissal of the grievance made against the resolution of the respondent 3, the respondent 1 could not have invoked the provisions under Section 237(3) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act') and allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 14-10-2010 passed in Appeal No. 17 of 2010-2011 by the Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat, Mandya Taluk. He submitted that the impugned order being arbitrary and illegal, interference is called for.

(2.) Sri B.J. Somayaji, learned Advocated submitted that this case is similar to one decided on 9-4-2014 in W.P. No. 28639 of 2012 (Smt. Ningamma v U.V. Narayanaswamy and Others).

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for respondent 4 submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision in the case of K.S. Nagaraja Rao has no application and hence, the impugned order is sustainable.