Smt. Kalpana N Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

REPRESENTED BY HER HUSBAND AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI Y NARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT ULLAYA RAMA NAGARA, NADSAL VILLAGE, PADUBIDRI POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-570104

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

(BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PANCHAYAT RAJ) RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:784 WP No. 11987 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11440 of 2018

¶21

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, RAJATHADRI C BLOCK MANIPAL, UDUPI-576104.

¶22

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT UDUPI UDUPI-576101.

¶23

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRAMA PANCHAYAT PADUBIDRI, NADSAL VILLAGE, PADUBIDRI UDUPI-576104

¶24

SHASHIDHAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O NARAYANA SHETTY NADIGUTTU HOUSE, POST ADMAR - 574 131 KAUP TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. ASHOK.N.NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4; SRI. S.K.ACHARYA., ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26/12/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A SEEKING FOR GRANT OF DOOR NUMBERS AND NOC TO MESCOM TO OBTAIN ELECTRIC CONNECTION TO THE BUILDING IN QUESTION, ETC.

¶28

IN WP NO. 11440/2018:

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

SHASHIDHAR SHETTY S/O LATE NARAYANA SHETTY, ADVOCATE,

¶31

507, SWASTHIK PARK,

¶32

- 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:784 WP No. 11987 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11440 of 2018

¶33

1ST WING, PADUBIDRI-574 111 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

(BY SRI. S K ACHARYA., ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

60 PADIBIDRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH PADUBIDRI-574 111

¶38

REP BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.

¶39

KALPANA NARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O DR.Y.NARAYANA SHETTY, R/AT ULLAYE, RAMANAGARA, NADSAL VILLAGE, PADUBIDRI-574 111 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK.N.NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1, 60 PADUBIDRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NOT TO ISSUE NOC TO THE R-2 FOR OCCUPATION OF THE DISPUTED BUILDING AS WELL AS NOT TO ISSUE DOOR NUMBERS TO THE SAID DISPUTED BUILDING SITUATED AT SY. NO. 57/2 AND 57/1A OF NADSAL VILLAGE, PADUBIDRI, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT, ETC.

¶42

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

¶43

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:784 WP No. 11987 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11440 of 2018

¶45

ORAL ORDER

¶46

The prayer in WP No.11987 of 2023 is for issue of a mandamus to consider the representation dated 26.12.2022 by which the petitioner is seeking for the grant of door numbers and a no objection certificate to MESCOM to obtain the electricity connection.

¶47

The impleading applicant has placed on record the decision of a Division Bench rendered in W.P. No.13416 of 2020 that had been filed by the petitioner challenging the recommendation of the Lokayukta on 19.03.2020.

¶48

The Division Bench in the order dated 03.09.2020 had set aside the recommendation of the Lokayukata and had reserved liberty to the Zilla Panchayat to take action as per the recommendation contained in paragraph 9 of the report, after issuing notice and hearing the parties in accordance with law.

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:784 WP No. 11987 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11440 of 2018

¶51

The impleading applicant has also produced the decision of the Zilla Panchayat to implement the recommendation of the Lokayukta, which had been taken after hearing the petitioner, as well as the impleading applicant, which is not in favour of the petitioner

¶52

It is not in dispute that this decision of the Zilla Panchayat to accept the recommendation of the Lokayukta and implement the same has not been challenged.

¶53

In light of the fact that the decision has been taken by the Zilla Panchayat to implement the recommendation of the Lokayukta which required the removal of the building of the petitioner, it is obvious that the prayer made in the petition to assign a door number or for grant of a no objection certificate to the petitioner to enable him to secure electricity connection cannot be granted.

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:784 WP No. 11987 of 2023 C/W WP No. 11440 of 2018

¶56

In the result, the W.P. No.11987 of 2023 is dismissed . However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the decision taken by the Zilla Panchayat pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, if he is so advised.

¶57

The impleading applicant has also filed W.P. No.11440 of 2018 seeking for a direction to the Panchayat not to issue no objection certificate to respondent No.2 for occupation of the disputed building as well as not to issue door numbers.

¶58

In light of the order passed in W.P. No.11987 of 2023, it is obvious that these prayers would not survive for consideration. Consequently, W.P. No.11440 of 2018 is also dismissed .

¶59

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶60

RK

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

Smt. Kalpana N Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kalpana N Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. Vijayakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt K B Manjula Vs the Bruhat Bangalore

Smt Mangalamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Kusuma K S Vs State of Karnataka

A Mahesha Vs Principal Secretary

Smt. Sudha Savanur Vs State of Karnataka