Sri. K V Venkataraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. K V Venkataraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2013

Bench: A S Bopanna

                               1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

   DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013

                           BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

 W.P.Nos.47284/2012 & 50454-455/2012 (LB-RES)


Between:

  1. Sri K.V. Venkataraju
     S/o Chikka Venkatashamy
     Aged about 48 years

  2. Smt. Lakshmidevamma
     C/o K.V. Venkataraju
     Aged about 44 years

  3. Smt. Rukkamma
     C/o Venkataswamy
     Aged about 38 years

        All are r/at Gundlagurki Village
        Kasaba Hobli
        Chikkaballapura Taluk-561 108
        Chikkaballapura District           ...Petitioners

(By Sri M Ramesh, Adv.)


And :

  1. The State of Karnataka
     Rep. by its Secretary
     Department of Revenue
     Bangalore -560 001

  2. The Chief Executive Officer
     Zilla Panchayath
     Chikkaballapura-561 108
     Chikkaballapura District
                               2


   3. The Chief Executive Officer
      Taluk Panchayath
      Chikkaballapura-561 108
      Chikkaballapura District

   4. The Secretary
      Manchenabele Village
      Manchenabele Village Panchayath
      Chikkaballapura-560 108
      Chikkaballapura District

   5. The President
      Manchenabele Village Panchayath
      Chikkaballapura-560 108
      Chikkaballapura District

   6. Sri C.M. Swamy S/o Chinnaswamy
      Aged about 42 years

   7. Sri Venkatesh S/o Munivenkataswamy
      Aged about 48 years

   8. Venkatesh S/o Ramesh
      Aged about 35 years

      All are R/of Gundlagurki Village
      Kasaba Hobli
      Koramangala Grama Panchayath
      Chikkaballapura-560 108
      Chikkaballapura District              ... Respondents

(By Sri Vijayakumar A. Patil, HCGP for R1
    Notice to R2-8 unnecessary)


      These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to call for the
entire records pertaining to the case; quash the impugned
resolution dated 18.05.06 passed by the R4 which are
produced & marked as Ann-F is illegal, arbitrary &
capricious and etc.

      These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary
hearing, this day, the Court made the following :
                                 3


                         ORDER

Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent No.1. He is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks. Considering the nature of disposal, notice to respondents No. 2 to 8 is unnecessary.

2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the resolution dated 18.05.2006 which is impugned at Annexure-F to the petition.

3. A perusal of the said resolution would indicate that the Gram Panchayat has passed the said resolution based on an earlier order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchyat, in GPA No.5/2005-06 dated 08.03.2006. Since the impugned order is based on such earlier order passed and since the said order has not been assailed in the instant petition, the petitioner would not be entitled to succeed based on the same. If at all the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the earlier order passed by the Taluk Panchayat, it is open for the petitioner to assail the same in accordance with law and as a consequence 4 of the same, the Gram Panchayat resolution would have to be modulated.

Reserving the above liberty to the petitioner, these petitions stand disposed of. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE hrp/bms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court