Karnataka High Court
Prakash S/O Sidram Gayakwad vs Zilla Panchayat on 29 July, 2024
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10674
WP No. 102121 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 102121 OF 2015 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. PRAKASH S/O. SIDRAM GAYAKWAD,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NEAR RAILWAY STATION GHATAPRABHA,
TALUK: GOKAK-591307, DIST:BELAGAVI.
2. BALAKRISHNA S/O. SIDRAM GAYAKWAD,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NEAR RAILWAY STATION GHATAPRABHA,
TALUK: GOKAK-591307, DIST:BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
BELGAUM,
BY ITS PRESIDENT,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
SAROJA
HANGARAKI 2. TALUK PANCHAYAT GOKAK,
Location: HIGH
BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
COURT OF
KARANTAKA TALUK: GOKAK-591307,
DHARWAD
BENCH DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. GRAM PANCHAYAT,
MALLAPUR PG,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
TALUK: GOKAK-591307
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. VIJAY S/O. RAMASHET GUPTA,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MALLAPUR P.G, TALUK: GOKAK-591307,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10674
WP No. 102121 of 2015
(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADV. FOR R4;
R1, R2, R3 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.10.2013
PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN NO.G.PAM.BE/ADHYAKSHRU/
APPEAL NO.4/2012-13 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND 11.01.2012 PASSED
BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN TP APPEAL NO.SA 17/2010-11 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH)
This writ petition filed praying is to quash the impugned
order dated 26.10.2013 passed by the 1st respondent in
No.G.Pam.Be/Adhyakshru/Appeal No.4/2012-13 vide
Annexure C and order passed by 2nd respondent in TP Appeal
No.Sa.17/2010-2011 vide Annexure-B dated 11.01.2012.
2. The main contention of the petitioners before this court
is that the petitioners are having bakery and vegetable shop
in the petition premises and they are in possession from
1952 and also the brother of petitioner contended that they
are paying tax to the respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat. The
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10674
brother of the petitioner also contended that shops have
been constructed after due permission from the 5th
respondent. The grandfather of the present respondent No.4
has filed a bare suit for injunction by alleging that the
original owner, namely Deshpande, has leased survey No.3
situated at Ghataprabha in his favour. The said suit came to
be dismissed. The father of the respond No.4, namely
Ramachandra Bhagavan Dasgupta, started asserting right
and title over the petition premises and accordingly filed a
suit for injunction in OS No.345/1988. The said suit was
dismissed as withdrawn, the names of these petitioners have
entered, as per resolution No.4/6 to the petition premises on
05.06.2004. The respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before
the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent without examining
the judgment of competent civil court has allowed the appeal
and has set aside the resolution. Being agreed by the same,
the petitioners preferred revision petition NO.4/2013 and
specifically contended that the 4th respondent has no locus
standi to question the resolution. Having suffered decree in
OS No.125/1973, the 1st respondent without examining the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10674
judgments has proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the
ground that petitioners have failed to establish their right
and title over the petition premises and hence the present
petition is filed before this Court.
3. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also
vehemently contend that the order passed vide Annexure 'C'
and 'B' suffers from material irregularity and it requires
interference. The respondent No.1 failed to take note that
the appeal filed by the 4th respondent was not at all
maintainable since he has no right over the petition premises
and also contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to
take note that petitioners are in possession since 1952 and
the impugned order passed by both the respondents are
against the material on record and hence this court has to
quash the same.
4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also reiterates
the same. The counsel appearing for the respondents would
contend that making an entry by passing a resolution by the
respondents is erroneous unless the rights have been
decided by the Civil Court and hence the order passed by the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10674
respondents is not in error and rightly exercised their power
and hence there cannot be any quashing of proceedings
against the order and both the orders are sustainable in
accordance with law.
5. Having heard the petitioners counsel and also the
counsel appearing for the respondent and also material
discloses that no doubt, a suit was filed in OS number 125
/1973 and the same was dismissed and thereafter an
attempt was made to keep the records in the concerned
Department in their name and the same has been
entertained by the concerned Department in keeping the
petitioners name in the concerned Department records and
the same has been challenged before the Executive Officer of
Taluk Panchayat and order has been passed keeping their
names in the records is not in accordance with law and the
same has been confirmed by the appellate authority that is
president of Zilla Panchayat Belagavi and the same has been
questioned and even inspite of any suit is filed, that too for
the relief of bare injunction and when any observation is
made and if any suit is dismissed and based on the dismissal
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10674
of the suit, there cannot be any order of keeping the names
of any of the persons in the records maintained by the
authority and having taken note of the reasoning assigned
by the both the authorities.
6. I do not find any ground to quash the orders passed by
the respective authorities in terms of Annexure 'B' and 'C'
and hence no merit in the writ petition and consequently writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. If any rights claimed by the parties, the same have to
be adjudicated in a Civil Court to decide their rights.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
HMB
CT-MCK
