SIDDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, questioning the correctness of the order dated 30th November, 2002 in proceedings No. KPR: (A)5:2002-03 on the file of the second respondent vide Annexure-J, has presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the petitioner has been allotted a site bearing No. 37 of Bommathimmanahalli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District and after verification, the same has been certified in the mutation register by the Adhyaksha of the grama Panchayat, Kavanadala, Madhugiri Taluk vide Annexure-A in M. R. No. 36 of 1998-99, dated 16th September, 1998. Assailing the correctness of the mutation entry dated 16th september, 1998 vide Annexure-A, the third respondent herein has filed the appeal on the file of the second respondent-Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District under Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and the appeal filed by third respondent had come up for consideration before the second respondent on 30th November, 2002. The second respondent, after conducting enquiry and after verification of the relevant material available on file, has allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation entry carried out by the Adhyaksha of the Kavanadala Grama Panchayat, referred above. It is the grievance of petitioner that, the said order is passed by second respondent vide Annexure-A without conducting the enquiry in strict compliance of Section 269 of the Act. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. Therefore, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel for petitioner is that, the second respondent has not at all conducted any enquiry before passing the impugned order. Straightaway, the second respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act and therefore, the impugned order passed by the authority is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that, it is a fact that, site No. 23 was earlier allotted to the brother of the petitioner after partition of the joint family property and that, the third respondent granted site No. 37 to the petitioner only after verifying the fact that, the site No. 23 fell into the share of the petitioner's brother. The Competent Authority, without appreciating this aspect of the matter and without proper verification and enquiry, has passed the impugned order. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to vitiate.