Sri K Ramaraj v. The Taluk Panchayath

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39406-DB( WA(No.(157(of(2024( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010058342024( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

TH DATED(THIS(THE(29 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026(

PRESENT(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(D(K(SINGH(

AND((

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(T.M.NADAF(

WRIT(APPEAL(NO.(157(OF(2024((LB-RES)(

BETWEEN:(( (

1., SRI,K,RAMARAJ, S/O,KEMPEGOWDA, AGED,ABOUT,80,YEARS, RF/O,MADAPURA,VILLAGE, KASABA,HOBLI, RAMANAGARA,TALUK, RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT, , PRESENTLY,R/AT, NO,21/32,,MATHRUSHREE, 1ST,MAIN,ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA, Digitally signedtiby MYSORE,ROAD, REKHA0R BENGALURU,560026, Location: …APPELLANT, High0Court (BY,SRI.,BHANU,PRAKASH,H,V.,,ADVOCATE),of0Karnataka , AND:( (

1., THE,TALUK,PANCHAYATH, REP,BY,ITS,EXECUTIVE,OFFICER, RAMANGARA,TALUK,, RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT,560571, ,

2., THE,MAYAGANAHALLI,GRAMA,PANCHAYATH, REP,BY,ITS,PANCHAYATH, DEVELOPMENT,OFFICER, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39406-DB( WA(No.(157(of(2024( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010058342024( ( ( RAMANGARA,TALUK, RAMANGARA,DISTRICT, ,

3., SRI,T,JAYARAM, S/O,POOJARI,THIMMAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,65,YEARS, R/O,MADAPURA,VILLAGE, MAYAGANAHALLI,POST, KASABA,HOBLI, RAMANGARA,TALUK, RAMANAGAR,DISTRICT,560218, …RESPONDENTS, , , THIS,WRIT,APPEAL,IS,FILED,U/S,4,OF,THE,KARNATAKA, HIGH,COURT,ACT,PRAYING,TO,SET,ASIDE,THE,ORDER,OF,THE, LEARNED, SINGLE, JUDGE, DATED, 23.11.2022,, PASSED, IN, WP, No.,47,OF,2022,(LB-RES),AND,TO,ALLOW,THIS,WRIT,APPEAL,, IN,THE,INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY., , , THIS, APPEAL,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, ,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,D,K,SINGH, ,and,, ,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,T.M.NADAF, , ORAL(JUDGMENT( (PER:,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,T.M.NADAF)( , , The, present, writ, appeal, is, filed, under, Section, 4, of, the, Karnataka, High, Court, Act,, 1961,, assailing, the, order, dated,

23.11.2022,passed,by,the,writ,Court,in,W.P.No.47/2022,(LB-RES), instituted, by, the, respondent, No.3, herein,, whereby, the, writ,petition,is,allowed,,and,the,order,dated,27.10.2021,passed, by, respondent, No.1/the, Taluk, Panchayat,, Ramanagara, Taluk,

and District is set aside, and relegated the parties to the Civil Court for determination of their rights, if any and if so advised.

¶2The parties are referred to as per their ranking before writ Court for the sake of convenience.

¶3Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of property bearing Site No.153/22, which is now re-numbered as 231/31. He claims that he acquired the property from his father Poojari Timmaiah under a partition between him and his brothers, the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition came to be allowed to his share. Earlier the khata in respect of the property continued in the name of the father of the petitioner, and after his demise on application by the petitioner, the khata in respect of the property in question was transferred and effected in the name of the petitioner on 30.06.2014.

¶4The respondent No.3 claiming right over the property belonging to the petitioner made a representation before respondent No.2-Mayaganahalli Grama Panchayath, which turned down the claim of the respondent No.3 on the premise

that the issue involves determination of rights between the parties requiring adjudication by a Competent Court of law as per Order dated 02.01.2016 (Annexure-G). Aggrieved by the said endorsement, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1/the Taluk Panchayath. The Taluk Panchayath on consideration of material placed before it framed the following points for consideration:- "i. Whether the appeal is fit to be admitted at first instance?

ii. Whether the appellant proves that he has right and possession over the disputed property ?

iii. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that he has right and possession over the disputed property?

iv. What order ?"

and allowed the appeal, holding that the property in dispute is the ancestral property of respondent No.3 and ordered to enter the name of respondent No.3 in the katha and directed the authorities to cancel the katha already made in the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the writ Court, the writ Court after hearing the rival parties was of the opinion that, in view of the settled position of

law that a dispute with regard to right, title and interest in respect of an immovable property between the private parties is required to be adjudicated and determined by the Court of Competent Jurisdiction, whereas respondent No.1/the Taluk Panchayat has taken upon itself the onus of determining the right, title and interest of the parties, cannot be countenanced. Especially the writ Court has observed regarding the points for consideration wherein the appellate authority framed the points on the right and possession over the disputed property and whether the appellant or the respondent no. 3 herein proved that either of them have right and possession over the property in question.

¶5The writ Court was of the opinion that, the jurisdiction to adjudicate on right, title and possession is not enjoined on the revenue authorities and allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the Taluk Panchayat, Ramanagara District, and relegated the parties to the Civil Court for examination of their rights.

¶6We have heard Sri. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The learned counsel has reiterated the very same submissions, which were urged before the writ Court, which have been taken on record, considered and rejected.

¶7We find no infirmities in the well considered order passed by the writ Court, which calls for any interference by this Court. Accordingly we dismiss this writ appeal.

¶8Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

SD/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

NG CT:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1