The Gram Panchayat's resolution to transfer property was invalid due to procedural violations of statutory requirements.

ORAL ORDER

In the captioned petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.1/Appellate Authority who has exercised power under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1993 Act') and the impugned resolution passed by the Dodda Pylayagurki Gram Panchayat vide Annexure-G wherein the Gram Panchayat has resolved to allot a gram panchayat property is set aside. The said order is called in question.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the records.

3. The petitioner is asserting title over the petition property measuring 15 feet East-West and 20 feet North-South which is part and parcel of gramatana portion situated at Byappanahalli Village, Dodda Pylayagurki Village Gram Panchayat, Chikkaballapura District.

4. The core issue that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the Gram Panchayat was legally empowered to dispose of immovable property in contravention of the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 209 and 210 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The controversy revolves around the legality and procedural propriety of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat in transferring public property without obtaining the necessary statutory approvals.

5. On a meticulous perusal of the resolution produced by the petitioner at Annexure-G, it becomes palpably clear that the Gram Panchayat has proceeded to alienate or transfer public property vested in it, without adhering to the procedure contemplated under Sections 209 and 210 of the 1993 Act. Section 209 of the Act expressly empowers a Gram Panchayat to acquire, hold, or dispose of property, but such powers are not unfettered and are subject to the rules and conditions framed by the Government. Further, the proviso to Section 210 specifically mandates that no immovable property vested in the Gram Panchayat shall be transferred, resold, or otherwise alienated without obtaining prior sanction from the Government, the Zilla Panchayat, or the Taluk Panchayat, as the case may be. These statutory safeguards are incorporated to ensure transparency and to prevent unauthorized alienation of public assets.

6. In the present case, there is no material on record to show that the Gram Panchayat had secured prior approval from any of the competent authorities, as required under the proviso to Section 210 , before passing the impugned resolution. It is evident that the transfer was effectuated in disregard of the mandatory statutory procedure. Further, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has failed to implead the Gram Panchayat as a party respondent in the present proceedings. In the absence of the Gram Panchayat, the very foundation of the petitioner’s challenge is rendered procedurally defective, as any adjudication would have direct implications on the Gram Panchayat, which is not before this Court.

7. Notwithstanding the above infirmities, the petitioner has raised two principal grounds in support of the writ petition. The first contention urged is that the appeal preferred before the Taluk Panchayat Chief Executive Officer was without jurisdiction, as the competent appellate authority under Section 269 of the 1993 Act is the Assistant Commissioner. This contention is completely misconceived. A bare reading of Section 269 clearly establishes that the Taluk Panchayat Chief Executive Officer is indeed empowered to entertain and adjudicate appeals against resolutions passed by a Gram Panchayat. The statutory scheme under Chapter XIV of the Act clar