PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N v. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2229-DB WP No. 21662 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 21662 OF 2017 (LB-RES-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. H.S. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O SIDDABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 2. HALESHAPPA H.P. S/O LATE PARAMAESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HALASURU VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK - 577 144 CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRAKASHA H.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 560 001.
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2229-DB WP No. 21662 of 2017 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH TARIKERE - 577 228 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. 5. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HALASURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH HALASURU, LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK - 577 144 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. 6. GANGADHAR S/O SIDDAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A HALASURU VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK - 577 144. 7. H. RAMAPPA S/O HANUMANTHANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A HALASURU VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK - 577 144. 8. RAJAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A HALASURU VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK - 577 144. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2229-DB WP No. 21662 of 2017 9. RAJAPPA S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A HALASURU VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK - 577 101. 10. H.G. ARAVINDA S/O H.M. GANGADHAR MAJOR R/A HALASURU VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK - 577 144 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2, SRI ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4, SRI A.S. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5, SRI PRAKASH K.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-8 TO R-9, SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAM MOHAN T.M. ADVCOATE FOR R-10 & R-6 & R-7 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2017, PASSED ON 20.03.2017, ON THE FILE OF 4TH RESPONDENT/EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TARIKERE TALUK PANCHAYATH, TARIKERE, AS PER ANNEXURE - L & ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERD THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2229-DB WP No. 21662 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. R. Pramod for learned advocate Mr. H.C. Prakash for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned advocate Mr. Ashok N. Nayak for respondent Nos.3 and 4, learned advocate Mr. A.S. Mahesha for respondent No.5, learned advocate Mr. K.R. Prakash for respondent Nos.8 and 9 and learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.N. Phanindra with learned advocate Mr. T.M. Ram Mohan for respondent No.10. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 who are served with the notice of the Court did not choose to appear. 2. The present petition is filed styling it as public interest litigation. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they are the residents of Halasuru Village and are governed by Halasuru Gram Panchayat. It is stated that respondent No.10 - Sri H.G. Aravinda filed original - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2229-DB WP No. 21662 of 2017 suit before the Civil Court, Tarikere, for permanent injunction against Halasuru Gram Panchayat - respondent No.5 in which, it was contended that the property in question was his ancestral property and the tamarind tree belongs to him. Respondent No.5 contended that the tamarind tree belongs to Panchayat and that, it is situated in Gramatana of Halasuru Village. The said suit was dismissed, stated the petitioners, by holding that the petitioners had failed to prove that the tamarind tree situated in Assessment No.85/85 of Halasuru Gram Panchayat belonged to him. 3.1 It is stated that there was partition between the family members, but the said property Assessment No.85/85 was not included in the partition. It is further stated that the villagers of Halasuru Gram Panchayat had written a letter to the Panchayat for removal of encroachment made by respondent No.5. It is stated that thereupon, the meeting of the Panchayat was called and the resolution was passed to issue notice to respondent No.5 for production of documents to show his title of ownership. The Tahsildar conducted the survey of the property of assessment. 3.2 The surveyor reported that the property/Assessment No.85/85 does not come under the government property and that, it - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2229-DB WP No. 21662 of 2017 comes under the Gramatana jurisdiction of Halasuru Gram Panchayat. The Halasuru Gram Panchayat convened a meeting on 31.01.2014 to undertake the measurement of the land. It is stated that the resolution passed by the Panchayat was challenged in an appeal by the petitioners. 3.3 With the pleadings as above, the public interest petitioners prayed to set aside the order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the Executive Officer, Tarikere Taluka Panchayat, Tarikere whereby, it was held that the said property Assessment No.85/85 admeasuring 42 feet x 50 feet has a house thereon and it is surrounded by vacant land on which, respondent No.10 - Sri H.G. Aravinda who is the son of Sri H.M. Gangadhar was carrying out agricultural operations and that, he was in possession of the property in question. 4. Various grounds were raised in support of the case in the petition and in the prayers made, it is contended that respondent concerned did not consider the judgment in Original Suit No.242 of 2001 which was instituted by respondent No.10 against the Gram Panchayat in which it was held that the tamarind tree on the property in question belonged to respondent No.5 - Gram - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2229-DB WP No. 21662 of 2017 Panchayat and that respondent No.10 did not have any exclusive rights over the tamarind tree. It was contended that in the said suit, respondent No.10 had sought declaration that he has the right of usage of tamarind tree. 4.1 It was next stated that the report of the Tahasildar of the Tarikere taluka about Assessment No.85/85 suggested that the land belonged to Gramatana and further that the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat was also overlooked. It was contended that when the property was classified as Gramatana property and it could be better used for grant of sites to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe persons instead of allowing it to be continued with respondent No.10, who has no right over the property. 4.2 It was further stated that respondent No.4 passed order rejecting the appeal of the petitioners on the ground that respondent No.10 was in possession of the property, however, the said assertion is erroneous. It was further contended that merely by passing a resolution, property cannot be conveyed. Section 210 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 was relied on which provides for vesting of property in Gram Panchayat. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2229-DB WP No. 21662 of 2017 4.3 Respondent Nos.8 and 9 who are the private parties filed their statement of objections to state that the facts are misrepresented by the petitioners, that the petitioners had filed an appeal against respondent No.10 before the Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayat leveling all false allegations. It was stated that father of respondent No.10 named Sri H.M. Gangadhar Bin Mallappa was in possession of the property for more than fifty years from the time of his forefather and the property is enjoyed by respondent No.10, as his ancestral property. 4.4 It was further stated that at the instigation of one Sri Mallikarjun and one Mr. K.P. Kumar who is the Ex-Zilla Panchayat member, the entire controversy is created as part of local political rivalry and that the aggrieved officers of the Panchayat have not committed any error in passing the order. 4.5 Statement of objections was also filed by respondent No.10 in which he stated that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Assessment No.85/85. It was stated the petitioners are not the owners and they do not have any right, title or interest to any extent in the subject matter property. It was stated that respondent No.5 - Gram Panchayat is taken - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2229-DB WP No. 21662 of 2017 decision upon the application of respondent No.10 to insert the measurement of the property which was left out in the records of the Gram Panchayat. It was contended that the Gram Panchayat rightly decided that respondent No.10 is in possession of the house property on the subject land. The order passed by the Executive Officer dated 03.04.2017 produced by the petitioners also suggested clearly that respondent No.10 is in possession of the property from his ancestors for more than fifty years. 5. In light of the above controversy and having regard to the averments in the petition and the reply by the respondents, it could be seen that issues relating to title of the property are raised and there is also a claim for possession and vice-a-versa. These aspects are in the nature of enforcement of civil rights. In the public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution, they cannot be gone into. The dispute with regard to ownership is sought to be agitated and adjudicated by the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners could not be said to have a locus standi to seek the prayers made in the petition. 5.1 The controversy is also subject matter of Original Suit No.53 of 2002 which is filed by petitioner No.1 and Original Suit No.242 of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2229-DB WP No. 21662 of 2017 2001 filed by the father of respondent No.10. In this view also, the present petition could hardly be considered. 6. No case is made out to exercise powers under public interest jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the petition is thoroughly meritless to become a public interest petition. 7. The same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24