HEMA REDDY Vs. MUNSIFF, SEDAM & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Art. 226(1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution, the, petitioner has challenged the. correctness of the order dated 31-1-1979 passed by the 1st respondent in Misc. Suit No. 14 of 1978 rejecting the election petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the validity of the election of the 2nd respondent as a member to the Group Village Panchayat, Konapur, from the Raghapur Constituency on the) allegation that the 2nd respondent was not the resident of Raghapur and that being so, he was disqualified to be elected in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 11(1) (b) of the Karnataka Village) Panchayat and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the 1st respondent has held that the 2nd respondent is residing at Raghapur and has accordingly rejected the petition.

(2.) Shri N. Santhosh Hegde, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that in the objections filed by the 2nd respondent, who was the 1st respondent in the caste, has stated that he is ''ordinarily the resident of the village Kolkqunda as well as Raghapur and that being so, he could not have ordinarily resided in the village of Ragnapur. In other words, it was contended that when the 2nd respondent himself. has claimed, that he was ordinarily the resident of Kolqunda it follows that he was not ordinarily residing at Raghapur. Such an inference cannot be drawn from the objections of the 2nd respondent who has also claimed to be a resident of Raghapur. Under Sec. 11(1) (b) of the Act, a person is disqualified to be chosen as a member or for being a member of the Panchayat, if he does not ordinarily reside in the village. In other words, a person should ordinarily be a resident of the village. To satisfy this, it is not necessary that one should reside in the concerned village all the 365 days in a year without any break.

(3.) Now, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence, ad t iced in the, case, the Ist respondent has recorded a firm finding that the 2n1d respondent has been residing at Raghapur. Therefore, the contention of Sri Santhosh Hegde that in view of the plea of the 2nd, respondent that he, is ordinarily the resident of Kolkund and Raghapur, he cannot be said to be residing ut Raghapur, cannot be accepted in view of the aforesaid factual finding recorded by the 1st respondent and also in view of the legal position that a person does not cease to ordinarily reside in the village, merely because he also resides for some time in another village. The, 1st respgndent was entitled to appreciate the evidence on record and, that being so, the 1st respondent has accepted the evidence adduced in the case, on behalf of the 2nd respondent and has held that the 2nd respondent was the resident of Raghapur. Therefore, the finding recorded by the 1st respondent being thee finding of fact which is otherwise not vitiated, cannot be interfered with in this petition under Art. 226 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution.