ORDER

The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 06.06.2019 passed by respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-'F' as well as the order dated 24.05.2017 passed by respondent No.4 at Annexure-'E'.

2. Insofar as the petitioner's relief at prayer-(a) is concerned, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner, whereby the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the appeal filed against the order passed under Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). Insofar as such prayer to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, in light of the legal position that order passed under Section 269 of the Act has no further remedy by way of statutory appeal, the order of the Assistant Commissioner does not call for interference. 3. Insofar as the petitioner's challenge to the order at Annexure-'E' passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath is concerned, the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the resolution dated 01.03.2016 at Annexure-'D', whereby the measurement relating to the petitioner's property as found in the house list was sought to be reduced in terms of the spot inspection report. Such challenge to the validity of the resolution, by the petitioner being aggrieved by the reduction in the measurement has culminated in the order passed at Annexure-'E', whereby the Appellate Authority has remitted the matter back for reconsideration with a direction to take note of the spot inspection report and the documents of title and then pass orders.

4. Needless to state, the effect of such an order is a direction to re-consider the resolution after taking note of the spot inspection report and the title documents of both sides and that is the manner of construing of the order at Annexure-'E'. If that were to be so, we find no reason and no ground made out for interference.

5. It is however clarified that, the resolution at Annexure-'D' would be subject to the outcome of the proceedings to be taken in terms of the operative portion of the order at Annexure-'E'.

6. Both parties are at liberty to place their derivation of title by relying on appropriate documents before the authority and Essur Gram Panchayath is directed to implement the operative portion of the order at Annexure-'E' after affording opportunity of hearing for both sides and eliciting their claims.

7. Essur Gram Panchayath is also at liberty to take note of the proceedings before the Civil Court appropriately.

8. Petitioner is permitted to array Essur Gram Panchayath as an additional respondent. Necessary amendment to be carried out.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off and all contentions are kept open.