Sri Suresh Vs the Chief Executive Officer

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PLEASED TO PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.TAPAMRA/KA.NI.AA/C04/C.R/2020-2021 DATED 29.11.2023 AND ENDORSEMENT OF RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.RA.JI.PAM/NYA.PRA/CR-06/2025-26 DATED 31.12.2025 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- G AND J).

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner asserts absolute ownership of an immovable property measuring 39 x 44 feet in Sheshagere village, Bedadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District, and the petitioner is aggrieved by the first respondent's Endorsement dated 31.12.2025 [Annexure-J]. The first respondent has issued this Endorsement informing the petitioner that his appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:25483 WP No. 10545 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [for short, ' the Act' ] cannot be sustained because the order called in question in appeal is an order under this provision.

¶32

The petitioner's grievance with the first respondent's Endorsement will have to be necessarily considered in the light of the provisions of Sections 72 and 269 of the Act and the complaint against the petitioner. The complaint, as commenced by a set of residents of the village, is that the petitioner has encroached property belonging to the Government, and the first respondent [ the Chief Executive Officer Ramanagara Zilla Panchayath ] has entertained this complaint as an appeal by the third respondent [ the Jurisdictional Panchayat Development Officer ].

¶33

The first respondent, by the order dated 29.11.2023 [Annexure-G] referring to Section 269 of the Act and the Karnataka Panchayat Raj [Removal of obstructions and encroachments] Rules, 2011 [for short, ' the 2011 Rules'] , has directed the

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:25483 WP No. 10545 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Jurisdictional Panchayat Development Officer to remove the encroachment with the assistance of the Jurisdictional Police. The first respondent has issued this direction holding that the petitioner has no interest in the property. The petitioner has presented his appeal with the first respondent under Section 269 of the Act that has resulted in the impugned Endorsement.

¶38

The first respondent was examining the

¶39

dispute over an alleged encroachment. The Section 72 of the Act reads as under:

¶40

72. Obstructions and encroachments upon public streets and open sites- (1) Whoever not duly authorised in this behalf, within the limits of a panchayat area, -

¶41

(a) shall have built or set up, or shall build or set up, any wall, fence, rail, post, stall, verandah, platform, plinth, step or any projecting structure or other encroachment or obstruction; or

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:25483 WP No. 10545 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

(b) shall deposit or cause to be placed or deposited any box, bale, package, or merchandise or any other thing in any public street or place or in or over or upon any open drain, gutter, sewer or aqueduct in such street or places,

¶46

shall on conviction, be punished with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees and with further fine which may extend to five rupees for every day on which such projection encroachment, obstruction or deposit continues after the date of first conviction for such offence.

¶47

(2) The Grama Panchayat shall have power to remove any such obstruction or encroachment, and shall have the like power to remove any unauthorised obstruction or encroachment of the like nature in any open site not being private property, whether such site is vested in the Grama Panchayat or not. The expenses of such removal shall be paid by the person who has caused the said obstruction or encroachment and shall be recoverable as if it were a tax imposed under section 199.

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:25483 WP No. 10545 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The Grama Panchayat is conferred with the power to remove obstruction or encroachment in any open site not being a private property whether such site is vested in the Gram Panchayat or not. If there is any encroachment, the power to direct removal is in the Gram Panchayat and that must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of the 2011 Rules. If any person is aggrieved by the outcome in the enquiry as aforesaid for a decision under Section 72(2) of the Act, the remedy is with the

¶52

Chief Executive Officer of the respective Zilla Panchayat, and a useful reference in this regard would be made to Rule 5 which reads as under:

¶53

(1) The person aggrieved against the order passed by the Competent Authority may appeal to the Chief Executive Officer of the respective Zilla Panchayat within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶54

(2) The Chief Executive Officer after giving the opportunity of being heard and after such enquiry as he deems fit pass orders which shall be final .

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:25483 WP No. 10545 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

This is in consonance with the appeal remedy that is contemplated under Section 269 [1] of the Act which reads as under:

¶59

[(1) Any person aggrieved by any original order of the Grama Panchayat under this Act, unless appeal is provided elsewhere in this Act, may within thirty days from the date of such order appeal to the Executive Officer.

¶60

Sri Mohan Reddy H. Sawkar, the learned

¶61

counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.S.Devaraju, a learned standing counsel who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, are heard in the light of these circumstances to decide on whether this

¶62

Court must not only interfere with the first respondent's Endorsement dated 31.12.2025 but also the order dated 29.11.2023.

¶63

The first respondent in exercising the

¶64

power under Section 72 of the Act has rendered the appellate remedy under Section 269 of the Act and

¶65

8 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:25483 WP No. 10545 of 2026

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Rule 5 of the 2011 Rules redundant. This Court must next observe that the first respondent, being the appellate authority, could not have exercised power under Section 72 (2) of the Act and the complaint should have been referred to the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath¹ [ the second respondent ] to hold an enquiry and decide.

¶69

Therefore, there is patent illegality, and therefore, this Court must interfere with both the Endorsement and the Order calling upon the first respondent to refer the records to the second respondent directing this Officer to issue notice not only to the petitioner but also the third respondent and decide on the dispute as contemplated under Section 72 of the Act subject to an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 4 of the 2011 Rules. Hence, the following:

¶70