Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Manje Gowda S/o Late Shri Kempe Gowda – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 50646 of 2016
Decided On : 27-02-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: G.S. Venkat Subbarao.
For the Respondents: B.J. Somayaji, Narendra D.V. Gowda.
Point of Law: Section 267 indicates that powers vested are only for purpose of suspension of any particular action pending enquiry relating thereto and does not confer any power to cancel khatha.
Headnote:
Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - Section 237, 269, 267 - Property - Cancellation of katha - Quashing impugned order passed vide Annexure-A and consequently issue writ in nature of certiorari quashing impugned order passed by President – Whenever there is any adjournment which is made by quasi judicial authority, detailed reasoning to be given as to why matter is being adjourned rather than laconic statement that Presiding Officer is otherwise busy in administrative function - Para 14.
Finding of the Court: When petitioner was absent, matter was posted for orders - These administrative authorities are also discharging quasi judicial functions - It is but required that administrative authorities give equal, if not more prominence to quasi judicial functions where rights of citizens are affected like in this case when order has been passed without jurisdiction, but also without information to citizen in matter - Whenever there is any adjournment which is made by quasi judicial authority, detailed reasoning to be given as to why matter is being adjourned rather than laconic statement that Presiding Officer is otherwise busy in administrative function - A suitable monitoring system to be established by Prl. Secretary, Department of Rural development and Panchayat Raj to monitor progress of all quasi judicial proceedings before Authorities coming under his jurisdiction - In this age when courts have also installed hybrid hearings through video conferencing, Prl. Secretary to explore possibility of making available similar facilities at all quasi judicial authorities so as to enable easy access to justice to citizens of country - Impugned order passed by 2nd respondent in Appeal at Annexure-A and impugned passed by 3rd respondent at Annexure-L are hereby quashed.
Result: Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) Quashing the impugned order dated 16.1.2014 passed by the President, Zilla panchayath, Mandya District, Mandya in proceedings No. JiPanMan Appeal No. 7/2002-03 vide Annexure-A and consequently issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.3.2002 passed by the President, Taluk Panchayath, Nagamangala Taluk, Nagamangala vide Annexure-L.
(b) Issue such other order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case including costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the orders at Annexure-A in Appeal No. 7/2023 dated 16.1.2014 passed by the Zilla Panchayat at Annexure-A and the order dated 7.03.2002 passed by the President, Taluka Panchayat at Annexure-L are without jurisdiction inasmuch as neither of them have powers under Section 237 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 to cancel the katha issued by the respondent No. 4, Nagamangala taluka panchayat in favour of the father of the petitioner who had already deceased prior to the order being passed.
3. The contention of Sri. G.S. Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no such powers vested with the respondents under Section 237 of the Act for cancellation of the katha. If at all appropriate proceedings are to be taken under Section 269, which not having been done, these powers could not have been exercised by the authorities. That apart, the delay which has been caused in challenging the said order is on account of no particular information being made available to the petitioner about the next date the matter would be taken inasmuch as on several occasions there was no sitting of respondent No. 2 and the petitioner did not even know the next date, furthermore the order passed by respondent No. 2 was not even communicated to the petitioner. It is only when the 5th respondent sought to assert his right on the property that the petitioner came to know of the claim made by respondent No. 5 being under the impugned order and thereafter certified copies were obtained and above petition filed.
4. None appears for respondent No. 5 though called twice. Hence, the matter is taken up for consideration.
5. Sri. B.J. Somayaji, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 fairly submits that respondent No. 2 to 4 did not have the power to pass Annexure-A and L. Similar is the submission made by learned AGA for respondent No. 1.
6. A perusal of Section 267 indicates that powers vested are only for the purpose of suspension of any particular action pending enquiry relating thereto and does not confer any power to cancel the khatha. Neither respondent No. 2 nor respondent No. 3 could have passed the impugned order. As such, the said order would have to be set-aside.
7. This Court is coming across several revenue proceedings in various jurisdictions where quasi judicial authorities are not holding sittings in a proper and required manner nor are the information being made available to the litigants and the lawyers. This is one more case in reference inasmuch as the impugned order dated 16.01.2014 was not to the knowledge of the petitioner until he made enquiries thereto and obtained certified copies in the year 2016.
8. The proceedings having gone on before 2nd respondent, as could be gathered from Annexure-N indicates that on most dates the matter was adjourned on the ground that 2nd respondent was otherwise busy with administrative work.
9. A perusal of the order sheet at Annexure-N gives a very sad situation where the matter listed on 10.05.2002, was adjourned to 15.06.2002 and thereafter to 18.02.2002, 17.08.2002, 19.09.2002, 19.10.2002, 28.11.2002, 4.01.2003, 13.02.2003, 28.03.2003, 30.05.2003, 10.07.2003, 19.07.2003, 29.08.2003, 17.10.2003, 21.11.2003, 19.12.2003, 7.02.2004, 26.03.2004, 5.06.2003, 31.07.2004, since the Presiding Officer was otherwise busy. On 9.09.2004 there was si
