Allowed

Shri. Irayya Virupaxayya Divate v. the Panchayat Development Officer

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024WP/110089/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, which had directed a re-survey and set aside a Gram Panchayat resolution. The Court held the order contrary to its prior dismissal of a writ petition by the same respondents for lack of material evidence. The connected petition seeking mandamus was dismissed for suppression of facts.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned order dated 06.04.2016 passed by Respondent No. 2 and dismissal of connected writ petition.

Shri. Irayya Virupaxayya Divate Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7423 WP No. 110089 of 2017 C/W WP NO. 103532/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 110089 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.103532 OF 2018(LB)

¶9

IN W.P.NO.110089/2017

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SHRI. IRAYYA S/O. VIRUPAXAYYA DIVATE, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YADUR, TALUK: CHIKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶12

SHRI. ANNAYYA S/O. VIRUPAXAYYA DIVATE, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YADUR, TALUK: CHIKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.06.21 12:12:20 +0530

¶14

SHRI. SADASHIV S/O. VIRUPAXAYYA DIVATE, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YADUR, TALUK: CHIKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶15

SHRI. PANCHAKSHARI S/O. VIRUPAXAYYA DIVATE, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YADUR, TALUK: CHIKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. MADHUKESHWAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, YADUR, TALUK: CHIKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7423 WP No. 110089 of 2017 C/W WP NO. 103532/2018

¶22

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, CHIKODI, AT CHIKODI.

¶23

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, D.C. COMPOUND, BELAGAVI.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED:14.08.2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D.

¶27

IN W.P.NO.103532/2018(LB) BETWEEN:

¶28

THE PRESIDENT, GRAM PANCHAYAT YADUR VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶29

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, YADUR VILLAGE, TALUK: CHIKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶30

…PETITIONERS

¶31

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADV.)

¶32

AND:

¶33

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶34

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7423 WP No. 110089 of 2017 C/W WP NO. 103532/2018

¶37

SHRI. IRAYYA VIRUPAXAYYA DIVATE, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶38

SHRI. ANNAYYA VIRUPAXAYYA DIVATE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶39

SHRI. SADASHIV VIRUPAXAYYA DIVATE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶40

SHRI. PANCHAKSHARI CHANDRAYYA DIVATE, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NO.3 TO 6 R/O: YADUR, TALUK: CHIKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶41

SHRI. DR. SIDDARAM SHIVACHARYA SWAMIGALU, SRI KADSIDDESHWAR SANSTHANMATH, SRIKSHETRA, YADUR, TALUK: CHIKODI.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2; SRI. S.S. BAWAKHAN, ADV. FOR R3-R6; SRI. SHRIDHAR HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R7)

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN TA.PAMCHI/GRAPAM/APPEALU-07/2011-12 DATED 6-4-2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT HEREIN AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 6-4-2016 MADE IN TA.PAMCHI/GRAMPAM/APPEALU-07/2011 -2012 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT HEREIN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AS THE SAME BEING TOTALLY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC.

¶45

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

¶46

IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7423 WP No. 110089 of 2017 C/W WP NO. 103532/2018

¶49

ORDER

¶50

W.P.No.103532/2018 is filed by the Gram Panchayat assailing the order dated 06.04.2016 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.7/2016-17.

¶51

Respondents 3 to 6 are assailing the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, Yadur in resolution No.7/1 in Meeting No.1/2011 dated 11.04.2011, filed W.P.No.66408/2011. This Court in the absence of material to substantiate the claim of the respondents 3 to 6, was not inclined to entertain the writ petition and writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2011.

¶52

Respondents 3 to 6, suppressing this order, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 who was not deliberately appraised of the order passed by this Court, has entertained the appeal and the present petitioner-Gram Panchayat is directed to re-survey the properties by taking cognizance of the sale deed. The said order is under challenge.

¶53

The connected petition in W.P.No.110089/2017 is filed by respondents 3 to 6 seeking mandamus to consider their

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7423 WP No. 110089 of 2017 C/W WP NO. 103532/2018

¶55

¶56

application dated 14.08.2017. Along with said application, it appears respondents 3 to 6 have sought implementation of the order.

¶57

Before this Court adverts to the prayer sought in the connected W.P.No.110089/2017, the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.66408/2011 would be relevant and therefore, this Court is compelled to take notice of the observations made by this Court while dismissing W.P.No.66408/2011 filed by respondents 3 to 6. Since it is a short order, I deem it fit to cull out the same, which reads as under:

¶58

“Admittedly, the resolution dt.28/3/2011 of the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Chikodi, does not disclose the allotment of petitioner’s properties bearing Nos.373, 374, 375 and 376 in favour of the 3^rd respondent. In that view of the matter, the allegation of the petitioner that the Taluk Panchayat authorities have renumbered petitioner’s properties and allotted the land to 4^th respondent, is not well founded. In the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact of renumbering of the properties belonging to the

¶59

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7423 WP No. 110089 of 2017 C/W WP NO. 103532/2018

¶60

petitioner, petition is without merit and is rejected.”

¶61

The apprehension of respondents 3 to 6 that the property owned by respondents 3 to 6 was allotted to respondent No.7, was not acceded by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This Court while dismissing the writ petition held that there is no material to substantiate that the property owned by respondents 3 to 6 is allotted to respondent No.7 by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. Having suffered an order at the hands of this Court, respondents 3 to 6 have not chosen to challenge the order passed in the writ petition. On the contrary, suppressing the said order, the same resolution, which was subject matter of earlier writ petition, is again challenged before respondent No.2Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Chikodi. The order passed by respondent No.2 is clearly found to be contrary to the observation made by this Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by respondents 3 to 6.

¶62

In the connected writ petition filed by respondents 3 to 6 there is complete suppression of the order passed in W.P.No.66408/2011. If this Court has declined to interfere

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7423 WP No. 110089 of 2017 C/W WP NO. 103532/2018

¶64

¶65

with the resolution No.7/1 in meeting No.1 dated 11.04.2011, the order passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-H is not sustainable and same is liable to be set aside by this Court.

¶66

For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i) Writ Petition No. 103532/2018 is allowed.

¶69

ii) The impugned order dated 06.04.2016 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-H is hereby quashed.

¶70

iii) Consequently, writ petition filed by respondents 3 to 6 in W.P.No.110089/2017 is hereby dismissed.

¶71

iv) In view of disposal of the petitions, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶72

YAN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

Shri. Irayya Virupaxayya Divate v. the Panchayat Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Irayya Virupaxayya Divate v. the Panchayat Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.G. Rukminamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Ningawwa Vs the Commissioner

Sri Mruthunjaya S/O Nagappayya Achari Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rukminibai Udayakumar Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka

The President, Gram Panchayat Yadur Village, Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Veeranna B. Kubasad Vs the State of Karnataka