Karnataka High Court
Sri Irayya S/O Shivayyan ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2024
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6825
WP No. 102492 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.102492 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. IRAYYA S/O. SHIVAYYAN SHIVAPPAYYANMATH
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
PHYSICAL DISABLED PERSON
RESIDING AT. UGARGOL, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591126.
2. SHIVAPRASAD S/O. IRAYYA SHIVAPPAYYANMATH
AGE. 17 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL FATHER
IRAYYA S/O. SHIVAYYA SHIVAPPAYANMATH,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591126.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
DHARWAD BENCH
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALRURU-560001.
2. THE BELAGAVI ZILLA PANCHAYAT BELAGAVI
DIST. BELAGAVI
RPERESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE-590001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BELAGAVI
DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6825
WP No. 102492 of 2024
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SOUNDATTI,
AT. SOUNDATTI, TALUK. SAUNDATTI, PIN-591126.
5. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR SOUNDATTI
AT. SOUNDATTI, TALUK. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591126.
6. THE TAHASILDAR SAUNDATTI
AT. SOUNDATTI, TALUK. SOUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591126.
7. THE TALUKA PANCHAYAT SOUNDATTI
AT. SOUNDATTI, TALUK. SAUNDATTI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PIN-591126.
8. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT UGARGOL
AT. UGARGOL, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. SOUNDATTI,
REPRESENTED BY PANCHAYAT
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
PIN-591126.
9. BASAVARAJ S/O. SHIVAPPA JALAGAR
GRAM PANCHAYAT EMPLOYEE, UGARGOL
AT. UGARGOL, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591126.
10. VEERAPAKSHI S/O. DURAGAPPA HOOLI
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591126.
11. YALLAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA SANGATI
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591126.
12. PARASAPPA S/O. SHANKAREPPA TALAWAR
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6825
WP No. 102492 of 2024
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591126.
13. FAKIRAPPA S/O. HANAMAHTAPPA TALAWAR
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O UGARGOL, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591126.
14. HANAMANT S/O. KAREPPA TALAWAR
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591126.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R3 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
RESOLUTION DATED 19/10/2019 IN RESOLUTION NO.6/1 AND 6/2
PASSED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F; TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS NO.7 AND 8 TO CONTINUE THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER NO.1 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY NO.1390/1/A IN
THE GRAM PANCHAYAT UGARGOL PROPERTY RECORDS; TO ISSUE
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 7TH AND 8TH
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IN
RESPECT OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY NO.1550/4/1 IN THE GRAM
PANCHAYAT UGARGOL PROPERTY RECORDS; TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS NO.2,3,4,5,6 TO LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE
RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 14 FOR ILLEGALLY PUTTING UP THE
FLEX/BOARD AND FIXING THE GATE BY ENCROACHING THE
PETITIONERS PROPERTY BEARING SITE NO.1390/1/A SITUATED AT
UGARGOL VILLAGE, TQ.SAUNDATTI, DIST.BELAGAVI; TO ISSUE
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 PROVIDE NECESSARY POLICE
PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONERS AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND
TO PROTECT THE PETITIONERS PROPERTIES BEARING SITE
NO.1390/1/A AND 1550/4/1 SITUATED AT UGARGOL VILLAGE,
TQ.SAUNDATTI, DIST.BELAGAVI.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6825
WP No. 102492 of 2024
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
1. Quash the impugned resolution dated 19/10/2019 in resolution no.6/1 and 6/2 passed by the 8th respondent vide Annexure-F.
2. To direct the respondents no.7 and 8 to continue the name of the petitioner no.1 in respect of the property no.1390/1/A in the gram panchayat Ugargol property records.
3. To issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 7th and 8th respondents to continue the name of the 2nd petitioner in respect of the house property no.1550/4/1 in the gram panchayat Ugargol property records.
4. To direct the respondents no.2,3,4,5,6 to legal action against the respondents no.9 to 14 for illegally putting up the flex/board and fixing the gate by encroaching the petitioners property bearing site no.1390/1/A situated at Ugargol village, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.
5. To issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no.1 to 6 provide necessary police protection to the petitioners and his family members and to protect the petitioners properties bearing site no.1390/1/A and 1550/4/1 situated at Ugargol village, Tq.Saundatti, Dist.Belagavi.-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6825 WP No. 102492 of 2024
2. Sri Shivaraj P.Mudhol, learned counsel submits that petitioner no.1 is a specially abled person and petitioner no.2 is his son. They were allotted property bearing no.1390/1/A and 1550/4/1 respectively in Ugargol Gram Panchayath, Tq:Soundatti, Dist:Belagavi. It was submitted, a house was constructed by petitioner no.2 in VCP no.1550/4/1 whereas other plot was vacant. It was submitted, respondents no.9 to 14 had illegally sought to deprive petitioners of their property. They had put up flex board, fenced site and put up gate. It was submitted, petitioner had made representation against said illegal action before respondents no.2 to 8. In pursuance of same, respondent no.2 had issued directions to gram panchayath to take appropriate action as per Anenxure-J1 dated 31.12.2019. Despite lapse of reasonable time, no action was taken.
3. On other hand, respondent no.8 was apparently hand in glove with respondents no.9 to 14. A resolution was also stated to have been passed as per Annexure-F on -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:6825 WP No. 102492 of 2024 19.10.2019 for deletion of petitioner's name in respect of site. It was submitted, said resolution was passed without prior notice and therefore, violative of fundamental rights. It was submitted, though there was remedy of appeal against resolution, since action of respondents for depriving of right to property was in violation of principles of natural justice and writ petition would be tenable. It was submitted, other reliefs sought being ancillary to main prayer, petitioner would be entitled for same.
4. On other hand, learned AGA appearing for respondents no.1 and 3 to 6 on advance notice, sought to oppose writ petition. It was submitted, insofar as prayer no.1, petitioner had efficacious remedy under Section 269 of Karnataka Gram Swaraj And Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for brevity). Therefore, writ petition would not be tenable and sought for dismissal.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6825 WP No. 102492 of 2024
5. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition papers.
6. Insofar as prayer no.1, it is seen that petitioner is challenging resolution passed by gram panchayath, which would be appealable under Section 269 of Act. Though petitioner has stated that under resolution, respondent no.8 resolved for deletion of name of petitioner from records, even as per petitioners their names have continued. This would indicate that resolution at Annexure-F may not have been implemented. Unless there is a executive order for implementation of resolution, no civil consequences would flow. Therefore, threat to fundamental rights urged against resolution at this stage would not be tenable. Insofar as prayer no.2 and 3, since name of petitioners is stated to have been continued there would be no need to entertain writ petition for considering said prayers.
7. Insofar as prayer no.4, as per petitioner, gram panchayath had allotted plots to petitioners. In case they -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:6825 WP No. 102492 of 2024 were alleging illegal or highhanded interference by private persons, they would be at liberty to seek protection by filing appropriate civil suit.
8. Likewise in prayer no.5, petitioner is seeking police protection. However, counsel for petitioner fairly submits that representation has not yet been filed, but considering imminent threat, representation would be filed forthwith.
In view of above, I do not find any good grounds to entertain this writ petition at this stage. Hence, writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to petitioner to avail appeal remedy against resolution at Annexure-F. If a appeal is filed, Appellate Authority shall consider same having due regard to contention of petitioner that they did not have notice of same until now.
Insofar as police protection, in case petitioner submits representation to respondents no.3 to 5, they -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:6825 WP No. 102492 of 2024 shall consider same within a period of 15 days thereafter and intimate result of consideration to petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55