AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 05.05.2011 passed by the second respondent which is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner claims right in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the petition regarding which the order had been passed with regard to the revenue entries as per mutation Order No. 382/1996-97. The fourth respondent claiming to be aggrieved is stated to have filed the appeal as contemplated u/s 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act before the second respondent. The second respondent by the order dated 05.05.2011 has allowed the appeal. It is against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
Though rival contentions have been advanced with regard to the rights of the parties to the property which is the subject matter and the retention or otherwise of the mutation entries in that regard, prima facie what requires to be noticed is as to whether the order impugned herein complies with the requirement of law. In that regard the first and foremost issue which needs consideration is with regard to the manner in which the appeal has been entertained. In respect of mutation entry which bears ME No. 382/1996-97, an appeal has been filed in the year 2003. Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act provides limitation of 30 days in respect of an appeal to be filed. In the instant case, there is absolutely no reference in the order with regard to the manner in which the authority has considered the aspect relating to limitation. Furthermore nothing is brought on record to indicate that any application had been filed by the contesting respondent herein seeking condonation of delay.
On that aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the order dated 24.02.2010 passed in W.P.No. 19287/2007. In the said proceedings, the learned Judge of this Court having considered a similar situation was of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the authority after considering and disposing of the application, if any filed seeking condonation of delay. Furthermore, in the instant case, the petitioner contends that the objections which had been filed has not been considered in accordance with law.
Therefore keeping these aspects in view, I am of the opinion that since the aspect relating to limitation i.e., the condonation or otherwise of delay, if any has not been considered by the authority, the order would have to fail on that ground itself. The matter will have to be reconsidered by the second respondent after providing opportunity to all the parties and thereafter come to the conclusion in accordance with law one way or the other. Hence the order dated 05.05.2011 passed is set aside. The matter is remitted to the second respondent to reconsider the matter afresh. The parties shall appear before the second respondent on 25.02.2013 at 11.00 a.m. The second respondent shall thereafter recall the proceedings and dispose of the same in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties including the aspect relating to the limitation as well as the pendency of the suit between the parties are open to be urged before the authority who shall consider the same in accordance with law.
The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.