Karnataka High Court
Arun Kumar K vs The Executive Officer on 10 December, 2021
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER,2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.21243 OF 2021 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ARUN KUMAR K.
S/O. PREMA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT IDKANI
HIREBAYALU
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 121.
2. MR. M.P. GIRISH
S/O. M.S. PUTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT HEMAKKI VILLAGE AND POST
KALASA HOBLI,
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 121.
3. MR. JAYANTH
S/O. M.S. PUTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT YALANDURU,
IDKANI VILLAGE
KALASA HOBLI,
MUDIGERE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 121.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)
-2-
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
COMPETENT AUTHORITY/
TALUK PANCHAYATH
MUDIGERE-577 132.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
3. THE IDKANI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 121.
REP. BY PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2
SRI. N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 30.01.2021 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT THERETO, AND ORDER DATED 04.10.2021
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A AND A1, ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this court seeking to quash
the order dated 30.01.2021 and a consequential order
dated 04.10.2021.
2. Heard Sri. Suyog Herele E., learned counsel for
the petitioners and Sri. Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel for
the respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri. N.S. Bhat, learned
counsel for respondent No.3.
3. Brief facts leading to present case are as
follows;
Petitioners are the purchasers of the subject
properties from the hands of one Smt. Leelavathi @
Neelamma, the erstwhile owner of the subject property, in
terms of a registered sale deed dated 30.01.2021. The little
history to the purchase is necessary to be noticed. The
erstwhile owner of the property was in possession of the
subject property which in fact is a gramatana land,
proceedings has been instituted against the erstwhile owner
pursuant to direction issued by the Division Bench of this
Court in W.P. No.9698/2020 (LB-RES). The said direction
led a proceedings instituted in case No.1/2020-21
registered on 21.11.2020. The erstwhile owner of the
property was heard in the matter and an order was passed
to demolish the property on 30.01.2021. This order was
passed on 30.01.2021. On the very same day, the vendor of
the property has sold the subject property to the
petitioners. The said matter i.e., W.P. No.9698/2020 was
listed before the Division bench on 15.07.2021. Noticing the
fact that the property had been taken over by the Gram
Panchayat, the division bench disposed of the matter by the
following order.
"Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed
I.A.No.1/2021 for recalling the order dated
24.03.2021 and a copy of the sale deed dated
30.01.2021 is enclosed under which respondent
No.7 has sold the property described in the
schedule thereunder to Sriyuths Arun Kumar and
M.P. Girish.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the 7th
respondent has filed a memo of retirement
enclosing two documents. Same is placed on
record. Same is accepted and he is permitted to
retire. Registry to delete the name of Sri. G.S.
Chidambara.
3. It is stated by Sri. Ashok N. Nayak, learned
counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondents
that under mahazar dated 23.03.2021, possession
of the property as described in the mahazar has
been taken this submission is placed on record.
However, we have not expressed any opinion in
that regard."
4. In pursuance of the disposal of the case before
the division bench, an order is passed on 04.10.2021 by the
Gram Panchayat, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for
change of katha on the strength of the sale deed dated
30.01.2021.
5. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the sale deed
executed by the vendor of the petitioners suppressing the
fact that the subject property was the subject matter of the
dispute and the said land was a gramatana land, it is for the
petitioners to initiate such proceedings against their vendor.
No right accrued to. In the light of judgment of division
bench of this court (supra), no fault can be found with the
impugned action.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition
stands dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioners,
availing such remedy, as available in law.
Interim order granted earlier stands dissolved.
Sd/-
JUDGE
snc
