1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

WRIT PETITION.NO.3699 OF 2014 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN

SMT. SHIVANAJAMMA

D/O LATE SIDDAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

YADAGAHALLI VILLAGE,

C.V.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI K. M. SANATH KUMARA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE PRESIDENT

ZILLA PANCHAYATH,

MANDYA-571 401.

2.

THE PRESIDENT

TALUK PANCHAYATH,

MADDUR,

MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

3.

THE SECRETARY

YADAGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

MADDUR TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

4.

HOMBAIAH @ KARIPUTTAIAH,

S/O HOMBAIAL @ ALBABAIAH,

MAJOR, YADAGAHALLI VILLAGE,

C.V. KERE HOBLI,

MADDUR TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

…RESPONDENTS

2

(BY SRI B. J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND 3;

SRI N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;

R-2 SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO SET ASIDE THE

ORDER DATED 16.11.2013 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.50/2010-11

BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEX-G AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this above writ petition

seeking writ of certiorari for setting aside the order passed

by the first respondent - the President, Zilla Panchayath.

2.

It is the case of petitioner that she is the

owner of vacant site measuring East to West 26 feet and

North to South 33 feet bearing property No.471 and Khata

No.301 situated at Yadanganahally village. Her grandfather

Late Bochaiah was the original owner and she has

succeeded to the same along with her sisters. It is stated

that the she is making use of the site as manure pit.

3

If is stated that the house list of Yodagahalli

Panchayath appears to have been revised in the year 1996

and on 04.06.1996, the third respondent - Gram

Panchayath adopts the resolution to accept the new house

list. The fourth respondent in collusion with the third

respondent managed to get entered his name in respect of

the vacant site in question by assigning new number as

473/2 vide Annexure-E.

The third respondent - Gram Panchayath at the time

of revising the house list and assessment of its properties

without issuing notice to the petitioner in collusion with the

fourth respondent has entered the name of fourth

respondent in respect of the disputed site. Therefore, she

was constrained to prefer an appeal before the Adhyakhsa

of Maddur Taluq, Panchayat. The same came to be allowed

and directed to conduct spot inspection and pass fresh

order. The fourth respondent preferred an appeal before

the first respondent - the President, Zilla Panchayath,

Mandya in Appeal No.50/2010-11. The President of Zilla

4

Panchayth without considering the documents and case of

the petitioner, set aside the order passed by the second

respondent and declared that the fourth respondent is the

owner of the site in question. It is this order which is

called in question in this writ petition on various grounds

urged in the writ petition.

3.

Learned

counsel

Sri

K.M.Sanath

Kumar

submits that the order passed by the first respondent is

illegal, perverse.

Next, he submitted that the first respondent has no

jurisdiction to pass the order.

A further submission was made that the first

respondent has failed to consider that he has no

jurisdiction to pass the final order under Section 237(2) of

the Karnataka Gram Swaraj & Panchayat Raj Act, 1993

(for short 'the Act') as held by this Hon’ble Court in

W.P.No.22708/2011.

5

Counsel

vehemently

submitted

that

the

first

respondent has erred in deciding the title issue. It is

submitted that the Civil Court is the appropriate forum to

adjudicate the dispute with regard to the title.