H V Krishna vs The Appellate Authority And Chief ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7693 Kant

                             1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

       WRIT PETITION NO.863 OF 2020 (LB-RES)


BETWEEN:

1.     H.V. KRISHNA,
       S/O. LATE D. VENKATAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
       R/O: NO.159, KEMPAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE,
       KUNCHAGARANAHALLI POST,
       BIDADI HOBLI,
       RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 127

2.     SRINIVASAIAH V.,
       S/O. LATE H.V. VENKATESH,
       AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
       R/O: NO.159, KEMPAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE,
       KUNCHAGARANAHALLI POST,
       RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 127

3.     T. VENKATESH,
       S/O. LATE THIMMAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
       R/O : NO.1578, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
       RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE,
       BENGALURU CITY - 560 010

4.     SRINIVAS R.,
       S/O. LATE RAMAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
       R/O : NO.03,
       HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
       CHIKKABANAVARA,
                             2


     BENGALURU CITY - 560 090
                                        ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI D.S. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING))

AND:
1.   THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND CHIEF OFFICER,
     TALUK PANCHAYATH,
     RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 159

2.   TAMMAYYAPPA,
     S/O. LATE JAVAREGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,

3.   T. GOVINDARAJU,
     S/O. TAMMAYYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

4.   T. NAGARAJU,
     S/O. TAMMAYYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

5.   T. RAMAKRISHNA,
     S/O. TAMMAYYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

     RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE
     R/O: KANCHUGARANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATHI,
     BIDADI HOBLI,
     RAMNAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT -562 129

6.   PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
     KANCHUGARANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATHI,
     BIDADI HOBLI,
     RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 129.

                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI H.C. DUSHYANTH ARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5
(PHYSICAL HEARING))
                                  3


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-C DATED 23.10.2019 PASSED
BY R1 AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT BENGALURU, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the order passed by

respondent No.1 dated 23.10.2019 at Annexure-C, by

which the challenge to the entries in the records of

Kanchugaranahalli Grama Panchayath relating to the

property bearing old Khaneshumari No.92/71 and new

No.98/71 consisting of a house and site at

Kemaiahnapalya Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk

and District, was rejected.

2. The petitioners claim that aforesaid property

belonged to their grandfather Sri. Guruve Gowda, who had

two wives named Smt.Chikkathayamma and Smt.

Chikkavenkatamma. The revenue entries in respect of the

property was made out in the name of second wife of Sri.

Guruve Gowda namely Smt.Chikkavenkatamma based on

a settlement deed dated 10.02.1957. The petitioners

claim that respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein got their names

entered in the revenue records claiming to be the children

of Jayamma who was the daughter of Sri. Guruve Gowda

from Smt.Chikkavenkatamma. Such revenue entries were

brought out in the name of Smt. Jayamma, wife of

respondent No.2 vide MR No.4/1987-88. Therefore, the

petitioners, being the other grandchildren of Sri.

Guruvegowda challenged these revenue entries before

respondent No.1 along with an application to condone the

delay in filing the appeal. But respondent No.1 without

issuing notice dismissed the appeal in terms of order dated

23.10.2019 which is challenged in this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the appeal before respondent No.1 was dismissed on

the sole ground that the appeal under Section 269 of the

Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 was not maintainable

and also that the appeal was filed belatedly after nearly 33

years from the date of mutation entries. The learned

counsel submits that an application for condonation of

delay was filed and therefore, it was incumbent upon the

respondent No.1 to consider the application.

4. In reply, the learned counsel for respondent

Nos.2 to 5 submits that aforesaid property fell to the share

of Smt. Jayamma at a settlement reported in R.A

No.21/1989 before the Additional District Judge at

Bengaluru. He further submits that predecessor of the

petitioners herein were also parties to the said compromise

and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge

the revenue entries based on such compromise.

5. I have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners strongly

dispute the compromise entered into in the aforesaid case.

7. If the revenue entries in the name of

Smt.Jayamma were brought out based on a compromise

recorded in R.A No.21/1989, the petitioners cannot

certainly challenge such revenue entries before respondent

No.1. The proper course for the petitioners is to challenge

the Judgment and Decree in R.A No.21/1989 and

thereafter if they are successful, they could get their

names entered in the revenue records. In that view of

the matter, the proceedings before respondent No.1 was

definitely not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SKS