Allowed

Smt. Annapurna v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024WP/21121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions filed by property owners challenging endorsements issued by the Honnawali Gram Panchayat denying No Objection Certificates (NOC) for electricity connections. The High Court held that the endorsements were based on a misreading of State Government Circulars regarding highway ribbons and quashed them, directing the respondent to reconsider the requests.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Endorsements dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure-D) were quashed; the respondent was directed to reconsider the petitioners' request for NOC within four weeks.

Smt. Annapurna Vs the Panchayath Development Officer — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:44199 WP No. 21121 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20894 of 2024 WP No. 21303 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21121 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶6

C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 20894 OF 2024 (LB-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 21303 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶8

IN WP No. 21121/2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. ANNAPURNA S/O HALAKOORAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT HONNAVALLI VILLAGE, HONNAVALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT 572 217.

¶11

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. NAVEEN J N.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HONNAVALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH, TIPTUR TLAUK TUMKURU DISTRICT 572 217.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.A. NAGARAJAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:44199 WP No. 21121 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20894 of 2024 WP No. 21303 of 2024

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT 23.7.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION. B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE NOC IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER TO OBTAIN POWER SUPPLY FROM BESCOM.

¶21

IN WP NO. 20894/2024

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SRI BASAVARAJ S/O HALAGOORAYYA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT HONNAVALLI VILLAGE, HONNAVALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK

¶24

TUMKURU DISTRICT 572 217.

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI. NAVEEN J N.,ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HONNAVALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH, TIPTUR TLAUK TUMKURU DISTRICT 572 217.

¶29

...RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SRI.A. NAGARAJAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:44199 WP No. 21121 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20894 of 2024 WP No. 21303 of 2024

¶33

¶34

A) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT 23.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION. B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE NOC IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER TO OBTAIN POWER SUPPLY FROM BESCOM.

¶35

IN WP NO. 21303/2024

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

H B MANJUNATHA S/O BEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 120 SRIRAMANAGARA HONNAVALLI VILLAGE, HONNAVALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT 572 217.

¶38

...PETITIONER

¶39

(BY SRI. NAVEEN J N.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶40

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HONNAVALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH, TIPTUR TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT 572 217.

¶41

...RESPONDENT

¶42

(BY SRI.A. NAGARAJAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶43

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 PF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT 23.7.24 ISSUED BY

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:44199 WP No. 21121 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20894 of 2024 WP No. 21303 of 2024

¶46

THE RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WP; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE NOC IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER TO OBTAIN POWER/ELECTRICITY SUPPLY FROM BESCOM.

¶47

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶49

ORAL ORDER

¶50

The petitioners own properties along the State Highway No. 102 in Honnavalli Village, Honnavalli, Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur district. The respondent’s similar Endorsements dated 23.07.2024, which are produced as Annexure D in each of these petitions, are called in question in these petitions. The respondent, a Gram Panchayat, has issued these impugned Endorsements informing the petitioners that they cannot be issued with Noobjection Certificate [ NOC ] to avail electricity supply to the new construction put up by them in the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:44199 WP No. 21121 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20894 of 2024 WP No. 21303 of 2024

¶53

corresponding properties because they have put up these constructions without obtaining NOC from the Department of Public Works.

¶54

The petitioners contend that they have the benefit of E-Katha issued by the respondent for their corresponding properties as also building licenses for construction and that they are issued with the impugned Endorsements when they approached the respondent for NOC to avail electricity supply. The petitioners are categorical that their respective properties are at a distance of 19.50 meters from the edge of the State Highway.

¶55

The present controversy is apparently

¶56

because the respondent apprehends that the petitioners have constructed buildings within State Highway Ribbon contrary to the different Government Orders/ Circulars issued as regards the Ribbon that must be maintained on either side of a State Highway, including the recent Circular dated

¶57

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44199 WP No. 21121 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20894 of 2024 WP No. 21303 of 2024

¶58

30.06.2022 issued by the State Government. The State Government has issued this Circular dated 30.06.2022 referring to the earlier orders with directions to the different Authorities [ including the authorities such as the respondent ] on how the Ribbon for the State Highways must be maintained with clarifications on the Ribbon required when there is overlapping of jurisdiction while stating that if any clarification is required, the concerned must approach the designated Authority under the Karnataka State Highways Act,1964.

¶59

This Court must observe that this Circular dated 30.06.2022 is a reiteration of the stipulation that within a Gram Panchayat's limits the Ribbon for a State Highway must be six [6] meters from the edge of the Highways i.e., there cannot be any construction within a distance of six [6] meters from the edge of the Highways. It is undisputed that the petitioners’ respective properties are within the respondent's

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:44199 WP No. 21121 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20894 of 2024 WP No. 21303 of 2024

¶62

limits. The Circular dated 30.06.2022 does not mandate that the concerned property owners must approach the Department of Public Works for NOC. The impugned Endorsements are obviously a result of misreading of the Government Orders/Circular dated 30.06.2022. Hence, these Endorsements dated 23.07.2024 must be quashed restoring the proceedings to the respondent for consideration in accordance with the prescribed parameters.

¶63

Therefore, the following

¶64

ORDER

¶65

[A] The petition is allowed, and the impugned Endorsements dated 23.07.2024, which are produced as Annexure - D in each of these petitions, are quashed directing the respondent to reconsider, within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

¶66

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44199 WP No. 21121 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20894 of 2024 WP No. 21303 of 2024

¶67

order, the petitioners' request for NOC in accordance with the prescribed parameters.

¶68

[B] The petitioners will be at liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

¶69

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶70

SA* ct:sr

Smt. Annapurna v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Annapurna 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

M/S Pristine Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Smt Sheela Anish Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp)

Sri B Manjappa Vs the Grama Panchayath

A. M. Barisa Bibi Vs Municipal Commissioner

Nagesh S R Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ramananda Shetty Vs State of Karnataka