Attibele Land Claimants Protected From Dispossession Based on Panchayat Resolutions Pending Appeal Filed Within 30 Days: Karnataka HC

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners should be relegated to the alternative remedy of an appeal under Section 269 of the Act.

The court held

The petition was disposed of, with the petitioners relegated to the appellate remedy under Section 269.

It also directed

Limitation was to be reckoned from the date of the order, and the appeal would be considered on its merits if filed within 30 days.

The petitioners were not to be dispossessed on the basis of the impugned resolutions until a final outcome in an appeal filed within that period.

01Facts

The petitioners claimed ownership of 33 guntas, including 2 guntas of karab, in Survey No. 14/2, Attibele Village.

They challenged Gram Panchayat resolutions dated 12 July 2022 and 31 October 2022, which identified property within specified boundaries as Gramathana and reserved it for allotment to persons without property.

The petitioners contended that the resolutions concerned the 2 guntas in their occupation and had been passed without notice to them.

p. 3

The question of whether the resolutions concerned the petitioners’ land was also pending in a suit instituted by them.

p. 5

The respondents submitted that the resolutions were appealable under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and that the appellate authority could examine the relevant circumstances.

p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners should be relegated to the alternative remedy of an appeal under Section 269 of the Act.

p. 4

ii.If so, on what terms should the petitioners be relegated, having regard to the asserted threat of dispossession and the question of limitation.

pp. 5–6

03Law Applied

Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 provides an appellate remedy against the impugned Gram Panchayat resolutions.

p. 4

Where the appellate authority can examine the relevant circumstances and issues raised, the High Court may relegate petitioners to that alternative remedy.

p. 4

The Court further directed that limitation be reckoned from the date of its order and that the appeal be decided on its merits if filed within the specified 30-day period.

pp. 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 Section 269

04Reasoning

Whether the resolutions concerned the petitioners’ land or Gramathana property available for grant was a disputed question also pending in the petitioners’ suit.

p. 5

The appellate authority could consider the resolutions in light of the circumstances and the issues raised in that suit.

p. 5

Given the petitioners’ claim that they had only recently learned of the resolutions, their asserted threat of dispossession, and the absence of any third-party interest, the Court provided that limitation would run from the date of its order and protected the petitioners from dispossession based on the resolutions while a timely appeal was pending.

pp. 6–7