Karnataka High Court
K R Sagar Grama Panchayat vs Shri N Swamygowda on 3 January, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:293
WP No. 44399 of 2017
C/W WP No. 19799 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 44399 OF 2017 (LB-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 19799 OF 2017 (LB-RES)
IN W.P.NO.44399/2017
BETWEEN
MR N SWAMY GOWDA
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT POLICE STATION ROAD,
KRISHNARAJASAGARA-571607
BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: B.S.SATYANAND., ADVOCATE)
AND
Digitally signed
by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
COURT OF M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-01
KARNATAKA
2. THE KRISHNARAJASAGARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT
3. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
KRISHNARAJASAGARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:293
WP No. 44399 of 2017
C/W WP No. 19799 of 2017
4. THE SECRETARY
KRISHNARAJASAGARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
5. THE PRESIDENT
TALUK PANCHAYAT,
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
SRIRANGAPATTANA,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
6. THE PRESIDENT
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA-571401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. B.J.SOMAYAJI., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI. H.P.MALLEGOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. P. NATARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS. 2, 3 AND 4 TO
CONTINUE THE KHATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER, COLLECT
TAXES AND ISSUE BUILDING LICENSE AS PER THE ORDER DATED
06/11/2015 IN APPEAL NO.4/2014-15 PASSED BY THE R5-
PRESIDENT, TALUK PANCHAYAT, SRIRANGAPATTANA (ANNEXURE-
AB) WHICH IS ALSO AFFIRMED BY THE R6-PRESIDENT, ZILLA
PANCHAYAT, MANDYA VIDE LETTER DATED 20.06.2017 (ANNEXURE-
AG) AND ETC.
*****
IN W.P.NO.19799/2017
BETWEEN
K R SAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
KRISHNARAJASAGAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571607
...PETITIONER
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:293
WP No. 44399 of 2017
C/W WP No. 19799 of 2017
(BY SRI: B.J. SOMAYAJI., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRI N SWAMYGOWDA
S/O NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
K R SAGAR, BELAGOLA HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571607
2. ADHYAKSHA
TALUK PANCHAYAT
SRIRANGAPATNA
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571607
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. SATYANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. P. NATARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER DTD.16.11.2015 PASSED BY
THE ADHYAKSHA OF TALUK PANCHAYAT, SRIRANGAPATNA, IN TPS
APPEAL NO.4: 2014-15 AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, BY
ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO
QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2015 PASSED BY
THE ADHYAKSHA, TALUK PANCHAYAT, SRIRANGAPATNA, IN TPS:
APPEAL NO.4: 2014-15 (ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.
---
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND
HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.12.2023, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner in W.P.No.44399/2017 is before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
NC: 2024:KHC:293
a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to continue the
khatha in the name of the petitioner, collect taxes
and issue building license as per the order dated
06.11.2015 in Appeal No.4/2014-15 passed by
the Respondent No.5-President, Taluk Panchayat,
Srirangapattana (Annexure-AB), which is also
affirmed by the Respondent No.6-President, Zilla
Panchayat, Mandya vide Letter dated 20/06/2017
(Annexure-AG).
b) Pass such other orders in the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interests of
justice and equity.
2. The petitioner in W.P.No.19799/2017 is before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i) Call for the records pertaining to the order dated
16.11.2015 passed by the Adhyaksha of Taluk
Panchayat, Srirangapatna, in TPS: Appeal No.4:
2014-15 and on perusal of the same, by issuance
of an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash
and set aside the order dated 16.11.2015 passed
by the Adhyaksha, Taluk Panchayat,
Srirangapatna, in TPS: Appeal No.4: 2014-15
(Annexure-E) and
ii) Grant such other or further reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the
case.
3. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the
site bearing Khatha No.156 measuring 100' x 120'
situated at Krishnarajasagara, Srirangapattan Taluk,
Mandya District. It is stated that the Government of
Karnataka acquired 856 Acers and 36 Guntas of land
NC: 2024:KHC:293
and notified the said area under Section 369 of the
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the
notification dated 30.8.1979 and declared the said
area as Krishnarajasagara Notified Area with effect
from 1.9.1979. The petitioner claims that he being
the occupant of the property in possession thereof,
his name was shown as occupant in the demand
registers, Hulikere Grama Panchayat under which
jurisdiction the above property came under and his
name was shown as a "holder" of the said property.
4. The Notified Area Committee, taking into account the
documents submitted by the petitioner, recognized
the petitioner as occupant and issued Hakku Pathra
on 6.4.1989 by receiving appropriate fees. The
petitioner made an application to the Notified Area
Committee seeking permission to put up a compound
wall and a commercial complex in the aforesaid
property for which permission was so granted on
19.5.1989.
NC: 2024:KHC:293
5. At that time, one Sri.H.S.Pappanna tried to interfere
with the possession of the petitioner, as such the
petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.487/1989 before the
Munsiff Court, Srirangapattana which was decreed on
26.2.1991. Subsequent thereto, the Executive
Engineer, K.R.S.Division, Irrigation Department has
filed a suit in O.S.No.7/1993 against the petitioner
for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner
from interfering with the possession of the Executive
Engineer which came to be dismissed for non-
prosecution on 23.9.1996. The Miscellaneous
petition having been preferred in Msic. Petition
No.34/1996, the said Msic. Petition also came to be
dismissed on 12.6.2000. Despite the said dismissal
when respondents No.2 to 5 sought to interfere with
the possession of the petitioner, the petitioner was
constrained to file a suit against them in
O.S.No.149/2001 which was decreed in favour of the
petitioner on 1.2.2007, against said decree a Regular
NC: 2024:KHC:293
Appeal in RA No.31/2007 has been filed which came
to allowed on 13.8.2007 setting aside the decree
dated 1.2.2007 and the matter was remitted to the
trial Court to frame additional issues with regard to
the maintainability and the said matter as fresh. The
Misc. Second Appeal in MSA No.164/2007 having
been filed by the petitioner vide order dated
8.10.2007, it was dismissed.
6. On OS No.149/2001 being taken up for fresh
consideration came to be dismissed on 20.10.2010,
on account of maintainability which was challenged in
RA No.70/2010 which was allowed on 20.10.2010 in
the judgment in OS No.149/2001 which was set
aside. Thereafter, there has been no appeal filed by
respondents and as such the said order in
RA No.70/2010 has attained finality.
7. At this stage, when the petitioner applied for renewal
of the license on 7.5.2012 an endorsement came to
NC: 2024:KHC:293
be issued on 4.6.2012 by the Grama Panchayat
stating that since the petitioner has not proved his
title, the license cannot be renewed. Hence, the
petitioner on 28.6.2013 submitted a detailed
representation to the Grama Panchayat enclosing all
the documents, endorsement came to be issued on
the very same date rejecting the representation of
the petitioner without considering the same in detail.
Once again reiterating that the petitioner cannot
seek building permission for the property.
Subsequent thereto, allegedly the Grama Panchayat
on 8.9.2008 has passed a Resolution bearing No.7(1)
cancelling the Khatha in favour of the petitioner and
it is this resolution which is under challenge
alongwith the Khatha in favour of one
Smt.B.N.Sowbhagya. The petitioner being unware of
the said resolution, the said Smt.B.N.Sowbhagya had
challenged the resolution before the President of the
Taluk Panchayat, Srirangapattana in Appeal No.5/08-
NC: 2024:KHC:293
09 which was allowed and the resolution quashed by
order dated 6.2.2009.
8. On an endorsement being issued on 9.7.2013 to the
petitioner as regards his application is when the
petitioner came to know about the resolution dated
8.9.2008 which was challenged before the Executive
Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Srirangapattana in Appeal
No.10/2013-14 which came to be allowed and the
matter remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh
consideration vide order dated 14.7.2014. Despite
the remand order passed on 14.7.2014, no order has
been passed by the Grama Panchayat. The petitioner
was informed that the Panchayat has sought for legal
opinion and were awaiting the same. An
endorsement came to be issued on 24.1.2015
informing the petitioner that the license will not be
granted, despite no order having been passed in the
matter remanded. Challenging the said
endorsement, Appeal No.4/2014-15 was filed by the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:293
petitioner before the President of the Taluk
Panchayat. The president vide its order dated
6.11.2015 set aside the resolution dated 8.9.2008
and directed the Grama Panchayat to continue the
Khatha, collect taxes and issue trade license.
9. The petitioner thereafter filed another application on
30.11.2015 for issuance of building license as
regards which another endorsement dated 11.1.2016
came to be issued stating that the grama Panchayat
was in the process of filing an appeal against the
order dated 6.11.2015 in Appeal No.4/2014-15.
Though no appeal was filed the application of the
petitioner was not considered. Hence, the petitioner
submitted various representations to respondent for
continuance of the Khatha which was not acted upon
on the ground that the Panchayat has sought for
opinion from its advocate for filing of an appeal.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:293
10. On 26.6.2017 the Zilla Panchayat, Mandya has issued
a letter to the Panchayat Development officer,
K.R.Sagara to comply with the order dated
6.11.2015 despite which the Panchayat Development
Officer did not comply. It is in that background that
the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs.
11. Sri.B.S.Satyanand., learned counsel for the petitioner
would submits that;
11.1. The petitioner has been deprived of the use of
his property on account of the high-handed
activities of the Panchayat Development Officer
which has resulted in several litigations. The
entitlement of the petitioner to the property as
confirmed by the Khatha which had been
issued, the possession of the petitioner having
been confirmed by Hakku Pathra as aforesaid,
the concerned PDO's are acting contrary to the
interest of the Petitioner for obvious reasons.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:293
11.2. It is only on the petitioner approaching the
respondent for issuance of building plan that all
these issues have been raised which are
completely unsustainable, an abuse of the
and 4 having suffered adverse orders in all the
proceedings filed cannot now still contend that
petitioner is not the owner of the property
and/or still contend that legal opinion is
required to be obtained when the Courts have
pronounced categorically on rights of the
petitioner positively and negated the rights and
claim of respondents No.2, 3 and 4.
11.3. From the year 1989, the petitioner has been
made to run from pillar to post and for over 35
years that the petitioner has been forced to
litigate on the matter. Even the direction of the
President, Zilla Panchayat to the PDO to comply
with the order dated 6.11.2015 passed in
appeal No.4/2014-15 has not been complied
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:293
with nor has any appeal been filed. His
submission is that the respondents No.2, 3 and
4 have purposely delayed the matter to deprive
the petitioner or the usage and benefit of his
property causing harm and injury to the
petitioner, they have no regard for the orders
passed by the court and have purposely come
in the way of administration of justice.
11.4. On these grounds he submits that the writ
petition is required to be allowed the
mandamus issued as sought for.
12. Sri.B.J.Sowmayaji., learned counsel for respondents
No.2, 3 and 4 submits that there is no right vested in
the petitioner as regards property, the jurisdictional
Tahsildar had on 21.12.2001 issued a letter negating
the claim of the petitioner and directed enquiry to be
caused, it is in pursuance of the letter of the said
Tahsildar that action was taken against the petitioner
and building license was not granted.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:293
13. The Tahsildar contending that the land belonged to
the Government, the petitioner not having any
rights, the respondents have rightly not issued
building license to the petitioner. On these grounds
he submits that the above petition is required to be
dismissed.
14. Smt. Saritha Kulkarni., learned HCGP submits that
the matter is between petitioner and respondents
No.2, 3 and 4, the State has nothing to say in the
matter.
15. Learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 submit
that they have already issued a direction to
respondent No.3 to comply with the order dated
6.11.2015 and there is nothing much for them to
say, the lis is between the petitioner and respondents
No.2, 3 and 4.
16. Heard. Sri.B.S.Satyanand., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Saritha Kulkarni.,
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:293
learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1,
Sri.B.J.Somayaji., learned counsel appearing for
respondents No.2, 3 and 4 an Sri.H.P.Mallegowda.,
learned counsel for respondent No.5 and
Sri.P.Nataraju., learned counsel respondent No.6.
Perused papers.
17. The petitioner has filed an application for
continuation of Khatha in the name of petitioner,
collection of taxes as regards his property and for
issuance of building license. The only ground on
which respondents No.2, 3 and 4 have been avoiding
performing the above is on an allegation that the
petitioner was not the owner of the property has not
established his ownership and that the Tahsildar had
written the letter claiming that State is the owner.
18. In so far as the claim of the Tahsildar is concerned
the State has not asserted any rights over the
property and/or made claim contradictory to the
petitioner in the present petition. In fact, the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:293
learned HCGP submitted that the lis is between the
petitioner and respondents No.2, 3 and 4.
19. If that be so, it is not for respondents No.3 and 4 to
be more loyal than the king and claim that they are
protecting the interest of the State, when the State
itself is not laying any claim on the property of the
petitioner.
20. The hakku Pathra having been issued in favour of the
petitioner way back on 1964 by the Notified Area
Committee, the taxes having been collected by the
Committee. The Committee on 19.5.1989 has
granted permission to build a compound wall and
commercial complex. It is only in the year 1993 that
a claim was made as regard the property by the
Assistant Executive Engineer, KRS Division which
litigation ended in favor of the petitioner vide order
dated 13.1.2012 in RA No.70/2010 as detailed
above. The claim of the Assistant Executive
Engineer, K.R.Sagara being rejected and the claim of
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:293
the petitioner having been confirmed it was but for
respondents No.2, 3 and 4 to have issued necessary
Khatha, collected taxes and also granted the building
license.
21. The 2nd set of litigation started by respondents No.2,
3 and 4 which ended with the order passed by the
President, Zilla Panchayat dated 6.11.2015 in Appeal
No.4/14-15 directing the panchayat to continue the
Khatha, collect taxes and issue building licenses.
22. The 2nd set of litigation has ended in favour of the
petitioner, the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 have
continued to avoid issuing of Khatha, collection of
taxes as also issuance of building license, which in
my considered opinion is not permissible.
23. In that view of the matter there is a requirement for
issuance of positive directions to respondents No.2, 3
and 4 by way of mandamus. As such I pass the
following;
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:293
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. A mandamus is issued, respondents No.2, 3 and
4 are directed to continue the Khatha bearing
Khatha No.156 Krishnarajasagara,
Srirangapattan Taluk, Mandya District in favor
of the petitioner. They are further directed to
collect the past taxes without levy of any
penalty or interest since the petitioner was
always ready to pay the taxes, it is only on
account of respondents No.2, 3 and 4 that
taxes are not collected.
iii. Respondents No. 2 to 4 are also directed to
issue the building license as per the order dated
6.11.2015 in Appeal No.4/2014-15 as affirmed
by the order dated 20.6.2017 by the President,
Zilla Panchayat, Mandya within a period of 60
days from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SR
