Remanded

K P Rajesh v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2022WP/1609/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka directed the Panchayath Development Officer to dispose of a representation dated 19.12.2020 regarding the removal of an illegally constructed compound wall blocking an approach road, completing the exercise within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 19.12.2020 and pass appropriate order within six weeks.

K P Rajesh Vs the Panchayath Development Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1609 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K P RAJESH S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO.3283 12TH CROSS EXTENSION R P ROAD NANJANGUD TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT-571301

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DEBUR GRAM PANCHAYATH DEBUR NANJANGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571314.

¶12

2 . THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER NANJANGUD TALUK PANCHAYATH NANJANGUD-571301 MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶13

3 . THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT M S BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

4 . M/S THE SOUTH INDIA PAPER MILLS LTD A REGISTERED COMPANY CHIKKAIAHNACHATRA VILLAGE AND HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK-571302

¶15

¶16

MYSURU DISTRICT BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI B J SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R3 R4 SERVED)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND R-2 AUTHORITY TO REMOVE THE COMPOUND WALL CONSTRUCTED ON THE ROAD TOWARDS THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE LAYOUT OF THE R-4 BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD 19.12.2020 AND 09.08.2021 VIDE ANNX-D AND E AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy. No.48/2 of Handuvinahalli Village, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysuru District. Petitioner claims that respondent No.4 has formed a layout in the Sy. Nos.44/3, 45/3 and 49/1 totally measuring 3 acres 03 guntas and constructed a compound wall on the approach road to the land belonging to the petitioner.

¶23

Petitioner submitted a representation with

¶24

respondent No.1 for removing the compound wall illegally constructed by respondent No.4 blocking the

¶25

¶26

approach road. Petitioner's grievance is that the said representation has not been considered.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has produced the rough sketch vide order dated which indicates that the compound wall is constructed on the approach road.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the road does not belong to the Grama Panchayath since the layout formed either by the petitioner or respondent No.4 are not approved by the Grama Panchayath and handed over to the Grama Panchayath.

¶29

5. I have considered the submissions made by

¶30

both the parties.

¶31

Perusal of Annexure-C indicates that the layout plan has been approved by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.4. However, learned counsel for respondent No.1 disputes that the layout has not been approved since there was no resolution passed by the Grama Panchayath for approving the layout. It is

¶32

¶33

undisputed fact that the site owner is in the layout formed by the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 are paying the property tax with respondent No.1- Grama Panchayath.

¶34

Therefore, it is expedite to dispose of the

¶35

writ petition directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 19.12.2020 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-D and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after notifying the petitioner and respondent No.4. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

K P Rajesh v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K P Rajesh v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mangala Vs State of Karnataka

Sapthagiri Institute of Medical Sciences Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chikkachowdappa Vs the Commissioner

Smt Hanumakka Vs the Adhyaksha

M/S Indus Towers Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Sri M Lokesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner