Karnataka High Court
Sunil B R vs Panchayath Development Officer on 12 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1705
WP No. 29532 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 29532 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. SUNIL B R
S/O RAJU
AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS
HALEBUDANURU VILLAGE AND
POST, HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 404.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PONNANNA M B,
SRI KESHAV MURTHY K R, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)
AND:
1. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
BUDANURU PANCHAYATH
Digitally signed BUDANURU - 571 404.
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
KARNATAKA
TALUK PANCHAYATH
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. SMT. PUTTATAYAMMA
D/O SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOSABUDANOOR VILLAGE,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
4. B.C.SAMPATHU
S/O CHOWDEGOWDA,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1705
WP No. 29532 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
HOSA BUDANUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK.
5. MANASA M.R.,
W/O GIRISH H.G.,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
HOSA BUDANUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK.
6. B.M.SHIVARAJU
S/O MUTHAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
HOSA BUDANUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK.
7. B.S. SHIVALINGAIAH,
S/O SIDDARAMU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
HOSA BUDANUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK.
8. JAYAPALA
S/O SIDDARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
HOSA BUDANUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK.
9. KUMAR
S/O THAMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
HOSA BUDANUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK.
10. KARIYAPPA
S/O LATE THAMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
HOSA BUDANUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:1705
WP No. 29532 of 2025
HC-KAR
11. B.P.SHRINIVASA
S/O PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
HOSA BUDANUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK.
12. B.P. SUNIL
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
HOSA BUDANUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI MANU B.P., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI G.B.SHARATH GOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R13)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 02.09.2025 BEARING
NO.BU.GAM.PAN NO.187/2025-26 PASSED BY THE
PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BUDANURU KASABA
HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:1705
WP No. 29532 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No. Bu.Gam.pn No:187/2025-26 dated 02.09.2025 issued by respondent No.1 - the Panchayath Development Officer informing the petitioner about a resolution passed by respondent No.1 on 30.08.2025 and directed him to shift or remove the pigsty, failing which, appropriate action would be initiated.
2(i). The petitioner contends that he is the owner and in possession of a property bearing e-khatha No. 88/88, situated in Hosabudanuru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya Taluk measuring 0.10 guntas. He claims that he is a micro farmer and has established a pigsty on the converted land. He approached respondent No.1 for grant of licence, which was accordingly granted on 01.08.2009. He contends that he has been running a pigsty in a scientific manner having regard to the fact that the pigs -5- NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR and piglets are susceptible to viral and bacterial infections. He also contends that the property in question is situated outside the Gramatana, which is evident from the endorsement bearing No.Bu.Gam.pn No.R.T.I 6/2025-26 dated 04.08.2025 issued by respondent No.1.
(ii). He further contends that respondent No.1, by a notice dated 04.07.2025, informed the petitioner to obtain a licence before continuing the activity of rearing pigs. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 14.07.2025, giving the particulars of the activities undertaken in the pigsty.
(iii). He contends that the Taluk Health Officer inspected the pigsty and after collecting information from the residents in the vicinity, addressed a letter dated 08.08.2025 to the District Health and Family Welfare Officer, Mandya stating that the residents were of the opinion that the petitioner had maintained proper hygiene in the pigsty and that no foul smell was emanating therefrom.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR
(iv). Likewise, a Doctor at the Primary Health Center, Helebudanuru after inspecting the pigsty of the petitioner, had addressed a letter dated 11.08.2025 to the Taluk Health Officer, stating that the pigsty is operated hygienically.
(v). The Chief Veterinary Officer, Mandya also inspected the pigsty of the petitioner and found that he had maintained hygiene in the pigsty. He reported that a borewell was situated at a distance of 100 feet from the pigsty and there was possibility of the borewell being polluted and therefore, he had advised the petitioner to take necessary steps to dispose off the bio-waste generated in the pigsty.
(vi). He contends that the Deputy Director of the Veterinary Department, Mandya without inspecting the pigsty, addressed a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, stating therein that the pigsty of the petitioner is located adjacent to a road and that the -7- NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner had not applied for renewal of the licence and that he had not obtained a no-objection certificate from the Pollution Control Board. It was further mentioned that a borewell is situated at a distance of 100 feet from the swine farm and that there was a possibility of contamination of the water in the borewell as the bio- waste generated in the pigsty was not scientifically disposed off, which was hazardous to the general public and, therefore, recommended suitable action against the petitioner.
(vii). Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath, in terms of a letter dated 19.08.2025, directed respondent No.1 to take action against the petitioner by either evicting the petitioner or closing the pigsty and report compliance. Consequently, respondent No.1 passed a resolution dated 30.08.2025 following which, the PDO issued the impugned notice. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the said notice. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR 3(i). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that running a pigsty is a permitted activity under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, for which no permission or licence is required. He further submits that the pigsty is established in private land belonging to the petitioner, which is situated outside the Gramatana limits and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to run the pigsty in his land.
(ii). He contends that the report submitted by the Taluk Health Officer to the District Health and Family Welfare Officer, as well as the letter dated 11.08.2025 addressed by the Doctor at the Primary Health Center to the Taluk Health Officer, and the letter addressed by the Chief Veterinary Officer, Mandya are all self-contradictory.
(iii). He contends that while the report of the Chief Veterinary Officer favours the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Veterinary Department, without visiting the farm, based on the opinion of the Chief Veterinary Officer's -9- NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR report, concluded that the running the pigsty may affect the health of the general public. He submits that these reports do not have any basis and are far-fetched.
(iv). He further contends that the petitioner is rearing a rare breed of pigs, which have to be raised in a hygienic environment, and that there is every possibility of the pigs and piglets succumbing to viral and bacterial infections. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner is bound to maintain cleanliness both within and outside the pigsty. Thus, he contends that the impugned notice has no basis.
(v). He further contends that if the running of the pigsty by the petitioner causes any nuisance, then the procedure contemplated under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) should be complied with. He therefore submits that, before respondent No.1 takes any action, it is incumbent upon the respondents to obtain a factual report regarding the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR safeguards taken by the petitioner while running the pigsty, whether the pigsty is being maintained hygienically, and also, whether it is affecting the general public in any manner whatsoever. He thus contends that the impugned notice has been issued without conducting any such exercise and is based on a mere assumption that the running of the pigsty by the petitioner is likely to cause health hazard and nuisance to the residents.
(vi). In support of these contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.100284/2019. He has also relied upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.38871/2016, where a Co-ordinate Bench was considering the question whether a license is required to run a poultry farm.
(vii). He has also referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.10645/2008, which was relating to the discharge of
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR waste and the alleged nuisance caused by an industry. He contends that the Division Bench of this Court observed that when an industry is established in an industrial area, a resident in such industrial area cannot complain that the industry is causing pollution. He therefore, submitted that the petitioner has established a pigsty in his land and the residents of the village cannot complain, as running of a piggery by the petitioner is an agricultural activity permitted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. He also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.4128/2019, which was a public interest litigation filed by a society representing a particular community which was primarily involved in rearing pigs. He contends that the Division Bench, after noticing the various contentions urged at the Bar in support of their claim that rearing pigs may cause public nuisance, directed the authorities of the State to earmark public places where persons belonging to the community could rear pigs and also to depute such
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR persons to the concerned universities to learn about hygiene in the establishment of such piggeries. He therefore contends that the Courts have been alive to the problems faced by people rearing pigs, as well as the owners of such piggeries. He contends that so long as the petitioner is running his pigsty without causing any nuisance or harm to the residents of the village, respondent No.1 cannot invoke any power to call upon the petitioner to close down the piggery.
4(i). The writ petition is opposed by respondent Nos.5 to 13 who has filed a statement of objections contending, inter alia, that the petitioner is operating a pigsty within the limits of respondent No.1 in violation of the statutory requirements. It is claimed that though the petitioner had earlier obtained a general license, the same had expired in the year 2022, and no steps were taken thereafter to get it renewed but the petitioner continues to operate the pigsty.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR
(ii). It is contended that under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, a valid and subsisting licence is mandatory for trades such as piggery, which has potentiality to generate nuisance, foul odour and risk of contamination of water sources. It is further contended that the petitioner is running the pigsty in a highly unhygienic, unscientific and irresponsible manner and that it is generating foul odour and is discharging untreated waste, attracting insects and flies, thereby causing nuisance and health hazard to the residents of the village. It is claimed that the residents of the nearby village have been suffering continuous nuisance, pollution, mosquito menace, and disturbance for their peaceful and dignified living.
(iii). It is stated that several residents have lodged numerous complaints with respondent No.1 and various authorities of the State, including the Human Rights Commission. Based on the complaints so lodged, the Pollution Control Board, vide letter dated 21.07.2025,
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR informed respondent No.1 to ascertain whether the petitioner had obtained the mandatory No-Objection Certificate from the Board, so that appropriate action could be initiated. The Board also recorded that the Piggery was causing nuisance and posing a health hazard.
(iv). It is claimed that the Taluk Health Officer, Mandya, after inspecting the unit of the petitioner submitted a report dated 08.08.2025 to the District Health Officer, stating that the piggery is maintained in an unhygienic manner and is causing untold nuisance to the villagers. It was also reported that as per public health norms, a piggery must be located at least three kilometers away from a residential habitation whereas the petitioner's unit is situated barely at a distance of 250 meters from the village.
(v). It is contended that pursuant to the complaints lodged by the respondents, the Chief Veterinary Officer (Administration) inspected the piggery and submitted a
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR report dated 16.08.2025 to the Deputy Director (Administration), Department of Animal and Husbandry, Mandya, confirming that the petitioner had not obtained No Objection Certificate from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and has not obtained a licence, but is storing bio-waste in neighbouring land which is located close to a borewell. It is claimed that despite repeated warnings, the petitioner failed to take any remedial measures.
(vi). On the contrary, when the villagers approached the petitioner requesting him to stop the nuisance and to adopt hygienic measures, the petitioner assaulted the villagers and threatened them with dire consequences. A complaint in that regard was lodged with the Mandya Rural Police on 17.08.2025.
(vii). It is contended that the Taluk Health Officer again inspected the pigsty and submitted a report dated 16.09.2025, specifically stating that the piggery must be
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR at least three kilometers away from residential areas, whereas the piggery run by the petitioner is situated at a distance of 250 meters away from the Gramathana limits. It was further reported that the petitioner did not possess a valid license, and that he was collecting the leftover food from choultries and hotels and storing in four rooms under unhygienic conditions, and that borewells were situated at a distance of 60 feet and 150-200 feet away from the piggery, which were at risk of being polluted. It is contended that the public face great difficulty in accessing the temple due to the filth and odour emanating from the piggery. It was also reported that there was a serious risk of contagious diseases unless immediate action was taken. Respondent No.1 therefore submits that this conclusively established that the petitioner is operating the pigsty in an illegal, unhygienic, dangerous manner, and causing untold nuisance to the residents of the village.
(viii). It is also claimed that, as per epidemiological data published by the National Vector Borne Disease
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR Control Programme, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, which is corroborated by studies conducted by NIMHANS and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Karnataka, a significant incidence of Japanese encephalitis cases each year is reported, with districts in southern Karnataka, including Mysore, Mandya, Shivamogga and surrounding regions, falling within the notified endemic zones.
(ix). It is further stated that these studies mention that pigs are the primary amplifying hosts of the Japanese encephalitis virus and that when mosquitoes bite an infected pig, they acquire high viral loads and subsequently transmit the virus to humans through bites.
(x). It is contended that the pigsty established by the petitioner is not a small-scale unit, but a large establishment where about 600 to 700 pigs are reared. Such a large concentration of pigs in a densely inhabited residential area poses a high epidemiological risk.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR Therefore, it is claimed that it is necessary for respondent No.1 to regulate the activities of the petitioner. It is also contended that the manner in which the petitioner is operating the pigsty is offending the fundamental rights of the villagers enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is claimed that under these compelling circumstances, respondent No.1 was forced to issue the impugned notice dated 02.09.2024 and it has acted within its powers under Sections 232, 233, 239 and 252 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993.
5. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 13 reiterated the aforesaid contentions.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also opposed the writ petition by filing an elaborate statement of objections, wherein it is contended that the petitioner is running the pigsty in an unhygienic manner. It is stated that the Taluk Health Officer, Mandya inspected the pigsty and marked a letter dated 08.08.2025 reporting
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR the manner in which the petitioner was operating the pigsty. Likewise, it is claimed that the Doctor of the Primary Health Center had also addressed a letter dated 11.08.2025 after considering the grievances of the general public. Similarly, the Chief Veterinary Officer, Mandya after inspecting the pigsty of the petitioner, addressed a letter dated 16.08.2025. A further letter dated 19.08.2025 was addressed by the Deputy Director of the Veterinary Department to the Chief Executive Officer stating that there is a possibility of contamination of water in a bore well situated at a distance of about 100 feet from the farm.
7. It is further stated that the Executive Officer had addressed a letter to respondent No.1 to take steps either for shifting the pigsty from the existing site or to closure of the farm. It was in that context that respondent No.1 addressed the notice which is impugned in this petition. It is contended that the Taluk Health Officer, Mandya had addressed a letter dated 16.09.2025 to
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR respondent No.1 stating that a piggery should be located at least three kilometers away from a residential area, whereas the pigsty established by the petitioner is barely 250 meters from the residential area. Therefore, it is contended that the notice issued by respondent No.1 is in order and is meant to protect and prevent the spreading of any disease and to ensure that the residents of the village live in a healthy atmosphere.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 reiterated the above contentions.
9. An application is filed by the residents of the village seeking permission to come on record and contest the writ petition. It is their case that the pigsty established by the petitioner is causing nuisance to them and that the petitioner, without obtaining any license from the Panchayat, is operating the unit in an illegal and unhygienic manner, thereby exposing the residents to the risk of infection. They therefore desire to come on record
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR and resist the writ petition. The learned counsel for the proposed respondents also reiterated the above contentions and prayed that since the applicants are affected by the operation of the pigsty, they should be heard in the matter before any order is passed.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
11. During the course of this writ petition, this Court desired to obtain a first hand information about the pigsty run by the petitioner and therefore, we requested an Advocate in order dated 10.10.2025 to visit the pigsty established by the petitioner and submit a report. The Court Commissioner visited the unit of the petitioner on 11.10.2025 and submitted a report which reads as follows:
" 3. The Petitioner's Sathya Piggery Farm is located approximately 250 meters distance from the residential houses at Hosabudanuru village. There is a 30 feet road in Northern side (in front) of the
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR piggery rearing Farm, which is commencing from Bengaluru-Mysuru National Highway and leading to Sri. Beerappa Swamy Temple as well as other villages and said temple is situated within 2 KMS from the pig rearing farm. The residents of Hosabudanur and other villagers are using the said road to visit Sri. Beerappa Devara Temple and this road is also having connectivity to some other villages. Further the residents expressed their grievances that they have to visit the Temple only through the road beside the piggery rearing farm for performing Pooja as well as God related works, it would affecting their ritualistic purity.
4. In western side of the property bearing E-katha No.88/88, the remaining property of the Petitioner is located, which is approximately 0.15 guntas. The Petitioner is using the said land measuring 15 guntas for the purpose of storing the bio waste and waste water coming out from the Piggery Farm. The said land measuring 15 guntas is vacant land, there is a pit to store the bio waste and waste water. Since bio waste of the Piggery Farm is not scientifically disposed or maintained, there is every chance of effecting the health of the residents, who are residing nearby the Farm.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. In southern side of the property bearing E-Katha No.88/88 belongs to the Petitioner, the property bearing Sy No. 11/4 measuring 17 guntas is located, which is belongs to one Smt. Putta Thayamma, a resident of Hosabudanuru Village. Smt Putta Thayamma told that she is unable to cultivate the land due to illegal storage of the bio waste and waste water on her land by the Petitioner. Further she told that due to bad/foul smell, she is unable to cultivate and raise any crops in the land.
6. There is a borewell dug by the Gram Panchayath, wherein Panchayath is drawing the water for the purpose of supplying the drinking water to the Hosbudanuru Villagers, There is a 50-meter distance between the borewell and the place where bio waste and waste water is storing by the Petitioner.
7. In the western side of the farm, there is a another borewell dug by the Gram Panchayath to supply the drinking water to the Hosbudanuru Villagers. There is a 100 meters distance between the borewell and the place where bio waste and waste water is storing. Both the borewells are functioning and drawing water for drinking purposes of the Hosabudanuru villagers.
8. In southern side of the Farm, agricultural lands are located, which are still vacant lands. I asked the
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR residents as to why the said lands are vacant; for which, they told that due to bad/foul smell, they are unable to cultivate and raise the crops in their respective lands.
9. The residents of the Hosabudanuru village, (who have signed to the draft spot inspection report) expressed their grievances that due to bad smell coming out of the piggery farm and the place where the bio waste and waste water is storing, they are suffering from serious health issues. Further they reiterate that since bio waste of the Piggery Farm is not scientifically disposed or maintained, the bad smell is coming out always and there is every chance of effecting the health of the residents, who are residing nearby the Farm. Further they have stated that the Petitioner has not maintained the cleanness in the Piggery Farm also and due to the heavy rain yesterday, today there is no considerable bad smell.
10. Further the residents stated that the Petitioner is used to bring the leftover food from the Hotels and Kalyana Mantaps and stored the same in the big drums and put the same in the road side, opposite to the residential houses; it would spread bad and foul smell all arounds. Further stated that due to storage of the foods, street dogs are coming there to eat the foods and there is a possibility of biting the human
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR beings and it is very difficult to the children to walk all around and to play games. I saw three Drums, wherein the leftover foods were stored and kept in the road sides, opposite to the residential houses. Due to the Piggery Farm is located in abutting to the residential houses of Hosabudanuru Village, intolerable nuisance is causing to the residents of Hosabudanur Village.
11. The approximate measurement of the compound wall is East to West 100 feet and North to South 60 feet. The height of the compound wall is approximately 8-10 feet. The piggery farm is divided into 2 portions; one is for rearing the piggeries and another one is for selling the piglets and having two main metal doors. There is no proper coverage of the piggeries by nylon-net to protect form biting the mosquitoes.
12. Inside the farm, there are 3 rows of compartments. Entrance compartment is having 12 small rooms, 2nd compartment is having 14 small rooms in front side and 7 small rooms in back side, which are using as delivery wards. The 3rd compartment is having again 2 rows, totally having 93 gestation cages (one cages meant for each pig).
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR
13. In between said 3 rows of compartments, there is a small drainage (East to West direction), which is using for flow of waste water and waste.
14. In western side of the rearing centre, there are 2 rows of compartments, having 10 delivery wards, having passage and small drainage in southern side for free flow of cleaning water.
15. In the southern side of the piggery rearing centre, there are 2 compartments using for nursery. In between 2 rows compartments, there are 4 feet passage has been maintained. There is a syntactic water tank has been installed in the North - East corner; the rearing centre is having water and electricity facilities.
16. In south-western corner there is a kitchen, having single bed-room, which is using by the employees, who are taking care of pig and piglets.
17. In Western side, there is a provision for the store of the foods as well as medicines, cleaning materials.
For the reasons stated supra, I am of the considered opinion that the piggery Farm and marketing place have been maintained properly by sprinkling the bleaching powder as well as sensitization. Since the entire piggery farm was cleaned prior to 2-3 hours of
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR visiting, there was no considerable foul smell at the time of inspection of the Piggery Farm. Since bio waste of the Piggery Farm is not scientifically disposed or maintained, there is every chance of effecting the health of the residents, who are residing nearby the Farm. Due to the Piggery Farm is located in abutting to the residential houses of Hosabudanuru Village, intolerable nuisance is causing to the residents of Hosabudanur Village."
12. After receipt of the Commissioner's report, the petitioner contended that he had put up additional infrastructure to arrest the nuisance by establishing a bio- waste plant which is covered on all sides. It is contended that this facility would take care of the apprehension of the general public and contends that the Assistant Commissioner of the Taluk may be directed to conduct an inspection of the unit to ascertain whether the present operation of the pigsty is causing any nuisance to the public.
13. The contention of the petitioner that running a piggery in an agricultural land is a permitted activity as it
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR falls within the definition of "agriculture" under Section 2(i) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, appears probable at the first blush, as a perusal of Section 2 makes it abundantly clear that the word "agriculture" includes, inter alia, the breeding of livestock. However, a deeper understanding of agriculture shows that it includes ancillary activities that complement agriculture, such as aquaculture, dairy farming, poultry farming or breeding of livestock. Therefore, so long as the primary activity is farming, any portion of such farm land used for ancillary activities would be construed as being used for agriculture. However, when the land in its entirety is used for the purpose of breeding livestock on a commercial basis, the owner of such land cannot claim the benefit of the definition under Section 2 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. This is so since the land in question is now assessed to tax by the Panchayat, meaning thereby that the land lies within the limits of the Panchayat.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR
14. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that there are three rows of compartments in the piggery. The first row comprises of 12 small rooms, the second comprises of 14 small rooms in the front and 7 small rooms at the rear, and the third comprises of 2 rows with 93 gestation cages. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that a large number of swine are reared in the pigsty. Going by the description of the infrastructure reported by the Court Commissioner, it gives an impression that the petitioner is rearing a large number of pigs in the pigsty. As a matter of fact, the petitioner himself has claimed that there are about 300 pigs, whereas the learned counsel for respondent No.5 to 13 claims that there are more than 600 pigs.
15. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the feed used for these pigs is largely food waste generated in hotels and other establishments, which is transported from the urban areas to the pigsty. Such waste has to be stored in a hygienic manner, and the waste generated from the
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR pigsty has to be disposed of in an equally hygienic manner. It cannot be let into the sewage or allowed to percolate into the soil, as this may contaminate the water sources, as reported by the various authorities of the State.
16. It is relevant to note that the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act, 1993') contemplate certain functions and duties to be performed by the Panchayat Section 58 of the Act, 1993 mandates that it is the duty of every Grama Panchayat to meet the needs of the people of the Panchayat area and it shall have powers to administer matters enumerated in Schedule I, and also as elaborated in the responsibility map in respect of Grama Panchayat, and to prepare and implement schemes for social, economic and cultural development for the realization of social justice for all, so as to ensure an environment that is safe and congenial for all citizens to exercise their rights. Schedule I of the Act, 1993 corresponds to Section
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR 58 of the Act, 1993. Entry 4(3) confers the power on the Panchayat to take preventive measures to control epidemics and contagious diseases while Entry 20 confers upon the Panchayat the power to ensure development of health and sanitation policy and its implementation, including collection, segregation and transport of solid waste to multi-village solid waste management plants and implementation of sanitation and waste management programmes at the Grama Panchayat level. Entry 28 recognizes the right of the Panchayat to plan, implement, protect and preserve rural environment and ecology.
17. Section 58E mandates the panchayat to take steps to maintain hygiene in the panchayat area and, for that purpose it shall inspect and regulate the activities of individuals or establishments that are engaged in the catering of food, water and other consumables within the panchayat area, and to provide a clean environment free from open defecation and garbage. Section 58F of the Act, 1993 also endows upon the Panchayat various
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR responsibilities to ensure that hygiene and safe environment are maintained within the village panchayat area.
18. Therefore, it cannot be contended that an activity such as a pigsty which has more than 300 or 600 pigs, can be treated as an agricultural activity which is exempt from licensing by the Panchayat. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti vs. State of Rajasthan under (2007) 2 SCC 413, where the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering a case of relocation of milk dairies which was creating nuisance to the citizens of Jodhpur, issued far-reaching directions and held as follows:
"32. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the larger interest of the citizens of Jodhpur, we issue the following directions:
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR
1. We direct the dairy owners/operators who were allotted land in the Milkmen Colony at Pal Road, but are still continuing to operate within the city limit to shift to a new colony which has been made available to them by the respondent State as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 31-3-2007;
2. The other milk dairy owners/operators who are running the dairies and keeping their cattle in the city of Jodhpur but have not been allotted land shall also shift their dairies and their cattle outside the city of Jodhpur on or before 30-4-2007. The respondent State of Rajasthan and the Municipal Corporation at Jodhpur are directed to ensure that necessary facilities and infrastructure as directed by the Division Bench to the dairy owners/operators are provided, if not already provided;
3. The Municipal Corporation of Jodhpur is directed to remove unattended stray animals, such as, stray cattle, bulls, dogs, pigs, etc. from the city of Jodhpur as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 30-4-2007;
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. The respondent State Government is directed to frame guidelines regarding proper use of plastic bags in the State because number of deaths of cattle on account of consuming of plastic bags have been reported. The State Government is directed to frame necessary guidelines on or before 31-3-2007;
5. The Municipal Corporation is directed to ensure that used plastic bags and other plastic materials must be separated from other garbage and destroyed to prevent their consumption by cattle, bulls and other animals;
6. The respondent State Government and the Corporation are directed to ensure that the basic infrastructure is made available to the milk dairy owners/operators as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 25-3-2007;
7. In order to ensure meticulous compliance with the directions of this Court and that the High Court and to ensure relocation of the milk dairies, we direct the committee appointed by the High Court to submit a compliance report on or before 7-5-2007.
19. The High Court of Madras, in R. Kala vs. Killiyoor Town Panchayat (2014 SCC OnLine Madras
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR 2757), while considering a case of a piggery established in a private land which was causing nuisance to the general public, held as follows:
"9. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, no sanction or licence is required for the petitioner to run a piggery Farm and the petitioner is running the same as per the norms fixed by the concerned authorities without causing any health hazards and a complaint was made against the petitioner only out of enmity with the oblique motive to curtail the business of the petitioner. In order to support his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Clause 8.2 of Micro, Small and Medium Industries Policy, 2008. But from G.O. No. 174 Rural Development Department dated 23.08.1996, I find that for running Piggery Farm, the Licence of Executive Office of Panchayat is necessary. In the instant case, absolutely no such licence was obtained. Further, by the said CO., the Executive Officer of Panchayat was authorised to initiate action, if he comes to the conclusion that the Piggery Farm create health problem to the public. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no sanction or licence is necessary from any authority cannot be
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR countenanced. Further, Sections 240, 245, 246 and 247 of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 empowers the first respondent to take appropriate action with regard to the maintenance of cattle shed and Section 240 specifically says that no person shall keep any animal on his premises so as to be a nuisance or so as to be dangerous. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to get licence from the first respondent as per G.O. No. 174 Rural Development Department dated 23.08.1996. But in the instant case, the petitioner has not obtained any such licence. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the first respondent. Hence, I do not find any compelling circumstances, warranting this Court to interfere with the impugned orders of the first respondent. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed."
20. Likewise, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kuldeep Singh vs. Karamjeet Singh & Others (2016 SCC Online P&H 6637), which also related to running of a piggery in a private land, held as follows:
"5. ...If at all, the petitioner wanted to cross-examine the witness with reference to the letter of BDPO, he ought to have made an application to the SDM that
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR BDPO, who issued the letter, should be called for cross-examination. Admittedly, he did. not do that. Therefore, no fault can be found in SDM relying on the letter issued by the BDPO. Learned counsel for the petitioner further. submits that he was not given the opportunity of cross-examining the BDPO. Giving of opportunity does not mean that SDM should invite the petitioner for making cross-examination. It was for the petitioner to make an application if he really wanted to cross-examine the person issuing the letter particularly because the proceedings are of summary nature. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the contention that a regular trial should have been held for conducting summary proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner as earlier stated has candidly accepted the existence of a pig at his house. The neighbours and the residents of the village are perceiving health hazards because of the existence of the pig. The petitioner is not entitled to retain a pig at his house at the cost of health of several residents as well as neighbours. The principle of utilitarianism cannot be forgotten and, therefore, the petitioner ought to remove the pig as ordered by the SDM."
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR
21. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2291/2012, while considering the case of a pigsty established in a residential locality, held as follows:
"4. Having regard to the fact that Pig Farming is carried on in a residential locality of Uppunda Gram Panchayath and as it emits foul smell affecting the health of the children in the Anganavadi which is in the same locality, I decline to interfere with the impugned order."
22. The National Green Tribunal, in a case reported in Vana Charitable Trust vs. State of Karnataka & Others (2025 SCC Online NGT 282), in respect of a case from the state of Karnataka relating to establishment of a pigsty in a private land, held as follows:
"18. Upon perusal of the pleadings and submissions, it is conclusively established that the piggery farm operated without requisite CTE/CTO under the Water and Air Acts, thus violating statutory mandates. The operation also lacked permission from the Gram Panchayat, and the mode of waste disposal contributed to environmental degradation and health concerns, particularly affecting school children. The
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR Deputy Commissioner's inspection corroborates these allegations and confirms the existence of foul odour and unsanitary conditions. Though the operation has since ceased, the illegal operation continued for a substantial period despite multiple notices and complaints. Moreover, the Karnataka SPCB's passive interpretation of CPCB guidelines is found to be misconceived. The CPCB's classification as Green Category mandates CTE and CTO regardless of the unit's scale, unless explicitly exempted."
23. The aforesaid judgments have, time and again reiterated that establishment of a pigsty does cause nuisance by the foul smell which can affect the general public residing nearby. In the instant case, the pigsty established by the petitioner is situated 250 meters away from the nearest residential area.
24. Respondent No.1 which is bound in law to ensure that the residents live in a hygienic atmosphere and environment, did not blindly issue the impugned notice to the petitioner but the same was based on various reports submitted by the authorities concerned. Therefore,
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1705 WP No. 29532 of 2025 HC-KAR the petitioner cannot find fault with the notice issued by respondent No.1 and no interference is warranted with the said notice.
25. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
26. In view of the disposal of this writ petition, all pending applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SHS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 5