RATHNAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the endorsement dated 18.10.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-F.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the property bearing katha No.21 situated in Gerahalli Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District was originally allotted in favour of late Krishnappa, who is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2. The respondent No.4 claiming to be the second wife of Lake Krishnappa obtained katha from respondent No.3 in respect of property bearing katha No.21 and the name of the respondent No.4 has been entered in the katha register in the year 2013-14. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the appeal before the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat under Section 269 of the Act. The respondent No.2 allowed the appeal by order dated 22.6.2015 vide Annexure-C. Pursuant to the order dated 22.6.2015 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C, a resolution has been passed vide Annexure-E dated 14.3.2016 by the Village Panchayat that the property No.21 is different from property No.18. Being aggrieved by the resolution dated 14.3.2016, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the respondent No.2 under Section 269 of the Act. The respondent No.2 without any enquiry as prescribed under Section 269 of the Act, has issued the impugned endorsement dated 18.10.2016 vide Annexure-F. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) Sri.M.V.Chandrashekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that originally the property was granted in favour of late Krishnappa. The petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of Late Krishnappa. After the death of Late Krishnappa, the petitioners have succeeded to the property and hence, they have filed the application for change of katha. The Panchayat without authority of law has entered the name of the respondent No.4, who is claiming to be second wife of the Krishnappa. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the appeal before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has passed the order directing the Panchayat to continue the name of Krishnappa till the parties produce the necessary documents to establish their rights. Subsequently, the Panchayat has passed the resolution vide Annexure-E. First time, the Panchayat contended that the property bearing Katha No.21 is different from katha No.18. He further contended that in the appeal filed by the petitioners before the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 without giving any notice to the parties as per Section 269 of the Act has issued endorsement, the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 269 of the Act. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petitions.