[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Jayavva W/O Basappa Puttannanavar vs Shantavva W/O Bhootappa Ballur on 26 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4764
WP No. 106288 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 106288 OF 2018 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. JAYAVVA W/O. BASAPPA
PUTTANNANAVAR @ HAIGUR,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. JAGADESH S/O BASAPPA
PUTTANNANAVAR @ HAIGUR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,
3. RAJU S/O. BASAPPA
PUTTANNANAVAR @ HAIGUR,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE
R/O. KUPPELUR,
TALUK. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. N.P.VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA
MR
Location: HIGH
AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SHANTAVVA W/O BHOOTAPPA BALLUR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. RAJEEV S/O. BHOOTAPPA BALLUR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. SANJEEV S/O. BHOOTAPPA BALLUR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE
R/O. KUPPELUR, TALUK. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4764
WP No. 106288 of 2018
HC-KAR
4. THE PRESIDENT
ZILLA PCNCHAYAT, HAVERI,
HAVERI.
5. THE PRESIDENT,
TALUK PANCHAYAT, RANEBENNUR,
RANEBENNUR.
6. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
GRAMAPANCHAYAT, KUPPELUR,
TALUK: RANEBENNUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.H.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. PRASHANT.V.MOGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN
ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.N.P.Vivekmehta., counsel for the petitioners and
Sri.M.H.Patil., counsel for respondents 1 to 3 have appeared in
person.
2. The petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
i) Set aside the order of 4th respondent passed in appeal
No.Ha.Zi.Pam./Pu.A-Vahi:11/2017-18 dated 03.08.2018 vide
Annexure-E and restore the resolution No.13 of Kuppelur
Gram Panchayat.
ii) Any other writ or order direction in the facts and
circumstances of the case the Court deems fit including cost
in the interest of justice and equity.
3. The petitioners, claiming to be the absolute owners in
possession of the house bearing V.P.C. No.391 and V.P.C.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4764
HC-KAR
No.275 situated at Kuppelur Village, Ranebennur Taluk, have
approached this Court challenging the order dated 03.08.2018
passed by the President, Zilla Panchayat.
The brief facts of the case are that respondents 1 to 3 had
earlier instituted a suit for declaration and injunction against one
Basappa, the husband of the first petitioner and father of
petitioners 2 and 3. The said suit came to be dismissed. The
appeal preferred there against was also dismissed, thereby
confirming the findings of the Trial Court.
Subsequent to the death of Basappa, the petitioners
sought entry of their names in the Panchayat records in respect
of the properties in question. The Gram Panchayat, by its
resolution dated 13.11.2013, effected such entry.
Aggrieved by the said resolution, respondents 1 to 3
preferred an appeal under Section 237(3) of the Karnataka Gram
Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act before the President, Taluk
Panchayat, Ranebennur. The said appeal came to be dismissed
on 16.08.2017. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 3 preferred a
further appeal before the President, Zilla Panchayat, who, by
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4764
HC-KAR
order dated 03.08.2018, allowed the appeal and set aside the
resolution of the Gram Panchayat.
4. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the appeal
filed before the President, Taluk Panchayat itself was not
maintainable, as the statute provides that any resolution of the
Gram Panchayat is to be challenged before the Executive Officer,
Taluk Panchayat. It is further contended that the subsequent
order passed by the Zilla Panchayat is without jurisdiction.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions
made and perused the material on record.
6. On a plain reading of the relevant provisions of the
Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, it is evident that
any person aggrieved by a resolution of the Gram Panchayat has
to prefer an appeal before the Executive Officer, Taluk
Panchayat. In the present case, respondents 1 to 3, instead of
approaching the competent authority, have preferred an appeal
before the President, Taluk Panchayat, which is not contemplated
under law. When the very initiation of proceedings is without
jurisdiction, all subsequent proceedings flowing therefrom are
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4764
HC-KAR
vitiated. Therefore, the order passed by the President, Zilla
Panchayat, confirming such proceedings, is unsustainable in law.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the President,
Zilla Panchayat, is hereby quashed.
iii. The resolution dated 13.11.2013 passed by the Gram
Panchayat is restored.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
