Skip to content


Subbanna Vs. Mudugodu Group Panchayat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. No. 655 of 1983
Judge
Reported inILR1986KAR888
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 9; Karnataka Village Panchayat and Local Boards Act, 1959 - Sections 232(2); Karnataka Village Panchayat and Taluk Boards Act - Sections 232(2)
AppellantSubbanna
RespondentMudugodu Group Panchayat
Appellant AdvocateS.N. Pramila, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.N. Hatti, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
.....commissioner in good faith as his servants or agents, barred by section 232(2) of karnataka village panchayat and taluk boards act.;suit for declaration and permanent injunction resisted on the ground of bar under section 232(2) of karnataka village panchayat and local boards act, 1959.;the very description of defendant no. 1 as 'group panchayat' shows that defendant no. 1 is not sued in the personal capacity. defendant no. 2 beeranna is described as 'village panchayat chairman'. the suit is filed against him as 'village panchayat chairman' itself. therefore, the suit cannot be said to be filed against him in his individual capacity.;the assistant commissioner has passed an order of eviction against the plaintiff and directed defendants 1 and 2 to execute his order. defendants 1..........and 2 resisted the suit contending that the suit was barred under section 232(2) of the karnataka village panchayat and local boards act, 1959.4. the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that defendants 1 and 2 have been sued in their personal capacity. defendants 1 and 2 are described as : --(1) mudugodu group panchayat by its secretary, mudugodu, rangenahalli, tarikere taluk.(2) beeranna, s/o. shankappa, major land-holder and village panchayat chairman, rangenahally, tarikere taluk.the very description of defendant no. 1 as 'group panchayat' shows that defendant no. 1 is not sued in the personal capacity. defendant no. 2 beeranna is described as 'village panchayat chairman'. the suit is filed against him as village panchayat chairman itself. therefore, the suit cannot.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kulkarni, J.

1. This is a plaintiffs, revision against the order dated 9-11-1982 passed by the Munsiff, Tarikere in O.S. 47 of 1981 ordering issue No. 4 against him.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and is in possession of the same and that defendant No, 1 had no right, title or interest in the same and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any way with or meddling with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property of the plaintiff.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit contending that the suit was barred under Section 232(2) of the Karnataka Village Panchayat and Local Boards Act, 1959.

4. The Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that defendants 1 and 2 have been sued in their personal capacity. Defendants 1 and 2 are described as : --

(1) Mudugodu Group Panchayat by its Secretary, Mudugodu, Rangenahalli, Tarikere Taluk.

(2) Beeranna, S/o. Shankappa, major land-holder and Village Panchayat Chairman, Rangenahally, Tarikere Taluk.

The very description of defendant No. 1 as 'Group Panchayat' shows that defendant No. 1 is not sued in the personal capacity. Defendant No. 2 Beeranna is described as 'Village Panchayat Chairman'. The suit is filed against him as Village Panchayat Chairman itself. Therefore, the suit cannot be said to be filed against him in his individual capacity.

5. The Assistant Commissioner has passed an order of eviction against the plaintiff and directed defendants 1 and 2 to execute his order. Defendants 1 and 2 are bound, in law, to execute the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore the present suit filed by the plaintiff is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the order of the Assistant Commissioner. If he is felt aggrieved by the said order, the law provided him with remedies like appeal and revision. He, instead of approaching the appropriate forum, had come up with a suit, which is clearly barred under the Karnataka Village Panchayat and Local Boards Act.

6. Section 232(2) of the Karnataka Village Panchayat and Local Boards Act, reads as :

'No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Government, the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Tahsildar or any other Officer or Government or a Panchayat or Taluk Board or any member, officer, servant or agent of such Panchayat or Taluk Board acting under its direction, in respect of anything done or purporting to have been done lawfully and in good faith under this act or any rule, bye law, regulation or order made thereunder.'

Defendants 1 and 2, while trying to carry cut the order of the Assistant Commissioner, are purporting to act in good faith and as servants or agents of the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, Section 232(2) of the Karnataka Village Panchayat and Taluk Boards Act, bars the suit of the present nature. Therefore, issue No. 4 was rightly held against the plenty and the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below needs no interference. The revision is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //