Point of Law - It is a settled legal proposition that the court should not set aside the order which appears to be illegal, if its effect is to revive another illegal order. It is for the reason that in such an eventuality the illegality would perpetuate and it would put a premium to the undeserving party/person.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling question orders dated 31-01-2014 and 22-02-2014, both passed by the 2nd respondent/President of the Zilla Panchayat, latter order having been passed reviewing the earlier order passed on 31-01-2014.

2. Heard Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Prathiba Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1; Sri B.J. Eshwarappa, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Counsel for Sri A. Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of property in Sy.No.29 of Anavatti Village, Sorab Taluk, Shimoga District. It is the claim of the petitioner that he inherited the said property from his father late A.Venkatarao and also claims to be in possession of the said property even to this day. It is contended that the father of the petitioner who was the owner of the land in Sy.Nos.5, 6, 53, 28 and 29 of Anavatii Village got the said lands converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes and set up a rice mill. The land in Sy.Nos.5 and 6 was sold in public auction by the Tahsildar for arrears of land revenue that was to be paid to the Government. The land in Sy.Nos.53, 28 and 29 were not auctioned by the Government, is the claim of the petitioner. Notwithstanding there being no auction, entries of the said survey numbers were made showing that the said lands belonged to Government as the same were appropriated towards arrears of land revenue. Notwithstanding this, the petitioner claims to be in possession of the land even after the death of his father right from 1952-53.

4. It is claimed that the petitioner in order to eke out his livelihood settled in Bangalore as he found greener pastures. It is the contention of the petitioner that taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner in the Village, respondent Nos.5 and 6 got their names illegally entered as owners of land in respect of Sy.No.29. The petitioner coming to know of the illegal entries made without any orders from the competent authority, initiates proceedings before the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat in Appeal No.43 of 2007-08. It was against an illegal entries said to have been made by the Gram Panchayat. The Appeal was filed invoking Section 237 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘the Act’ for short). The Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat heard the matter and directed deletion of illegal entries made in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.28 and 29 of Anavatti Village and directed making of entry in respect of the said survey numbers in favour one U.V.Murali, brother of the petitioner.

5. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent/Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat filed an appeal before the President of the Zilla Panchayat raising several contentions. The President of the Zilla Panchayat by his order dated 31-01-2014, directed the parties to approach the civil Court to establish their rights, if any, in respect of the property dispute and thereafter, to approach the 4th respondent/Gram Panchayat for entry into the records based upon a decree that would be passed by the civil Court. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed a review before the very authority who had passed the order seeking review of the order insofar as it pertained to setting aside of the order of the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat who had directed making of entries in the names of the petitioner and his brother in the demand register. The President of the Zilla Panchayat entertained the said application, reviewed the order and quashed the order of the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat dated 20-06-2012. It is calling in question the said two orders i.e., the initial order of the President, Zilla Panchayat directing the parties to approach the civil Cou