Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sumithramma vs Sri. Peddanna on 17 March, 2022
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.1771 OF 2012(LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUMITHRAMMA,
W/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O SAGANAHALLY, KASABA HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VIJAYA M N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. PEDANNA,
S/O PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST.
2. SRI. SUBBA REDDY,
S/O NARASIMHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
3. SRI. RANGANATHA REDDY,
S/O VENKATA RANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
4. SRI. ASWATHAPPA S/O SIDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
2
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDENTS OF SAGANAHALLY VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
5. THE SECRETARY,
GANGASANDRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
GOWRIBIDANUR DISTRICT,
DISTRICT: CHICKBALLAPUR.
6. THE PRESIDENT,
TALUK PANCHAYATH,
GOWRIBIDANUR DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPUR.
7. THE PRESIDENT OF ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
CHICKBALLAPUR.
8. SRI. NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGE: MAJOR, R/O SAGANAHALLY,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
DISTRICT: CHICKBALLAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ANAND K, ADVOCATE FOR R1-4 & 8;
SRI. L SRINIVASA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI. C M MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
R5 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 4.12.2010 PASSED BY THE PRESIDENT, TALUK
PANCHAYATH, GOWRIBIDANUR VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT THE PRESIDENT ZILLA
PANCHAYATH, CHICKBALLAPUR DATED 27.12.2011 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The essential grievance of the petitioner is against the
impugned orders which by their effect take away the small site
wherein she is running a petty business. Despite service of notice,
respondents have chosen to remain unrepresented, that cannot
deter the court from adjudging the case brought before it in
accordance with law.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to grant
indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) The subject small site admeasuring 3 x 3 sq. meters was
allotted to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayath vide Resolution
dated 11.8.2003. Certified Copy of this is at Annexure-A. Petitioner
has been put into the possession of this site and she has erected a
small structure wherein she has been running a petty business, and
thereby eking her livelihood.
(b) There was some effort from respondent Nos.1 to 4 & 8 to
forcibly remove the petitioner from the subject site which eventually
resulted into an injunctive suit being instituted in O.S.No.51/2007
and it came to be decreed on 6.4.2010. A challenge was laid to the
judgment & decree in R.A.No.38/2010 which was dismissed for non-
prosecution on 7.4.2014. This is what learned counsel for the
petitioner submits across the Bar. There is no reason to doubt this
version. Thus, the petitioner has been in the settled possession &
enjoyment of the site in question with the structure built therein for
years and she has been earning her livelihood through the petty
business. That being the position, there was no justification
whatsoever for laying a challenge to the resolution in question,
several years after the same was passed, as rightly argued by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
(c) It has been a settled position of law that a right of appeal is
the creature of law and therefore, such a right has to be exercised
subject to the conditions prescribed by law which has created such a
right. Apparently, appeal was filed is true but it was filed long after
the expiry of the limitation period prescribed therefor. A Co-ordinate
bench has held that without condoning the delay, the appellate
authority does not get competence to entertain the appeal on merits
vide COMMISSIONER VS. SHRISHAIL & OTHERS, AIR 2004
Kant 75. Therefore, the appellate authority grossly erred in
entertaining the appeal and setting at naught the Resolution in
question. Thus, the entire exercise is absolutely without jurisdiction
and the impugned order is non est.
(d) There is also force in the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the appeal having been favoured, Resolution came to
be set aside on the articulated premise that her client has been
granted another site, which she vehemently denies. No material is
produced by the respondents to rebut petitioner's contention as to
her not being granted any other site. Even if one is granted, the
respondent can snatch it away from her. If that be so, there was no
reason for setting aside the Resolution of the kind under which
rights of the parties had crystallized beyond the point of dilution.
The above apart, there is a lot of force in the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner that the public bodies created under the
Statute need to act in conformity with rules of reason & justice. The
impugned order does not reflect the elements of justice and
therefore, their invalidation is eminently warranted.
(e) The respondent Nos.6 & 7 shall collectively pay a cost of
Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner lady who has been unnecessarily
driven her to many litigations i.e., one in this Writ petition, another
in O.S.No.51/2007, another in R.A.No.38/2010 and the present
proceedings in which the impugned orders came to be passed.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ
of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders dated 4.12.2010
& 27.12.2011 respectively at Annexures-G & H and thereby, the
resolution of the Gram Panchayath under which site was allotted has
been revived with full effect.
The cost shall be paid to the petitioner within one month
failing which, for the delay of each day, the respondent Nos.6 & 7
shall collectively pay Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner in addition to
Rs.10,000/-; all this amount shall be recovered from the erring
officials of the respondent bodies.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cbc
