Karnataka High Court
Sri. T. S. Bacha Reddy vs Executive Officer on 29 June, 2022
Bench: R. Nataraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.2901/2021(LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. T. S. BACHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRIRAM REDDY
R/AT THUMMANAHALLI
THIPPENHALLI POST, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SURESH BABU B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYAT, SIDALGATTA
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 101
2. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
GRAM PANCHAYAT, KASABA HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 101
3. SURENDRA M
S/O MUNIYAPPA
MAJOR,
R/AT THUMMANAHALLI,
THIPPENAHALLI POST, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (THROUGH VC);
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R3-SERVED)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 05.03.2020 IN CASE NO.VPC
NO.27 OF 2017-18 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-G.
AND DIRECT THE R-2 NOT TO DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER
FROM THE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SITES
BEARING HOUSE LIST NOS.98, 112, 166 AND 296.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the order dated 05.03.2020 in case
No.VPC.27/2017-18 passed by the respondent No.1. The
petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent
No.2 not to dispossess him from the possession and
enjoyment of the sites bearing house list Nos.98, 112, 166
and 296 lying within the limits of Mandal Panchayath, Anur
(henceforth referred to as "subject sites" for short).
2. The petitioner claims that the subject sites
were allotted to his father in terms of a resolution dated
09.01.1992 passed by the Mandal Panchayath, Anur.
Later, his name was entered in Form No.9 and house list
register of Thummanahalli Grama. After the death of his
father on 04.02.2001, the petitioner being the eldest
member of the family applied for transfer of the khathas to
his name. The respondent No.2 transferred the khathas of
the subject sites to the name of the petitioner. The
petitioner claimed that the respondent No.3 filed an appeal
in No.VPC.27/2017-18 before the respondent No.1 to
cancel the khathas that stood in the name of the
petitioner, on the ground that the sites were allotted in
violation of the rules. The respondent No.1 heard the
appeal from time to time and on 09.08.2018, the
respondent No.2 was directed to submit a report after
conducting a spot inspection. The petitioner claims that he
was not notified of the inspection by the respondent No.2.
By a notice dated 30.08.2018, the respondent No.2 was
directed to produce the complete set of documents, based
upon which the khathas of the subject sites were
registered in the name of the father of the petitioner. The
respondent No.2, however, did not produce the said
documents willfully. A direction was therefore issued to
the respondent No.2 to appear in person before the
respondent No.1 on 24.10.2019. The case was adjourned
to 14.11.2019, on which day, the respondent No.1 did not
preside over the proceedings. The petitioner claims that he
was taken by surprise when he received a copy of the
order dated 08.03.2020. The petitioner claims that when
he brought to the notice of respondent No.1 that
08.03.2020 was a Sunday, the date was changed to
05.03.2020. Hence, being aggrieved by the aforesaid
order, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the impugned order is passed after 27 years and no
reason is assigned for condoning the delay. He submitted
that when a statute specifies a period of limitation to file
appeals, the authorities are bound to consider the same.
He also submitted that the impugned order is passed
without providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner
to produce documents and without considering the spot
inspection report submitted by the respondent No.2. He
further submitted that the subject sites allotted to the
father of the petitioner was after following all the
prescribed rules and the erstwhile Mandal Panchayath had
allotted sites to not only to the father of the petitioner but
also to various others. He further submitted that the
respondent No.2 failed to produce the house list register
maintained in its office, which reflected the lawful
allotment of sites to the father of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1
submitted that the petitioner was aware of the spot
inspection conducted by the respondent No.2. He also
submitted that the grant of the subject sites to the father
of the petitioner was without following the due process of
law. He further submitted that the respondent No.2 did not
produce any documents to substantiate the basis on which
the khathas of the subject sites were recorded in the name
of the father of the petitioner. The learned counsel
submitted that since the petitioner's father had
fraudulently obtained allotment of four sites, there was no
limitation prescribed for annulling such fraudulent action.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2,
on the other hand, contended that though there were
documents to show that the subject sites were recorded in
the property register in the name of the father of the
petitioner, but there was no corresponding records to
indicate that the subject sites were lawfully granted to his
father.
6. I have considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The respondent No.3 was the erstwhile
member of the respondent No.2, who alleged that the
subject sites were illegally allotted to the father of the
petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record the entries
made in the house list register, which indicate that the
subject sites were granted to the father of the petitioner.
If the respondent No.3 desired to contest the allotment of
the subject sites, he ought to have filed necessary
application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal
before the respondent No.1. If the respondent No.3 had
not filed any application, the respondent No.1 was bound
to call upon the respondent No.3 to file appropriate
application to explain the delay in filing the appeal. This
position of law is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in M/s Singh Enterprises vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and
others [(2008) 3 SCC 70]. A perusal of the impugned
order passed by the respondent No.1 discloses that the
petitioner was not provided adequate opportunity to
substantiate the allotment of the subject sites to his
father. In that view of the matter, the impugned order
passed by the respondent No.1 deserves to be set aside.
Hence, the following
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed-in-part.
ii) The impugned order dated 05.03.2020 passed
by the respondent No.1 in case
No.VPC.27/2017-18 is quashed.
iii) The case is restored on the file of the
respondent No.1, who shall call upon the
respondent No.3 to file necessary application
for condonation of delay.
iv) The respondent No.1 shall provide adequate
opportunity to the petitioner to produce all the
documents available with him and thereafter,
may take a decision in accordance with law.
v) In order to enable the early consideration of
the case by the respondent No.1, the petitioner
and the respondent No.3 are directed to
appear before the respondent No.1 on
18.07.2022 at 3.00 p.m.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMR
