IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.123 OF 2016 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. CHIKKEGOWDA S/O MAYANNA GOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1(A) SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA AGE: 38 YEARS R/A MAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE BASARALU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 571 401 1(B) JAYARAMU S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA AGE: 40 YEARS R/A MAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE BASARALU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 571 401 1(C) MAHESH M.C.
S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA AGE: 36 YEARS R/A MAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE BASARALU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 571 401 ... APPELLANTS (BY MR.D.S.HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT MANDYA – 571 401 2. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DODDAGARUDANAHALLI GRAM PACHAYAT BASARALU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 571 401 3. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O NINGEGOWDA AGE: 58 YEARS R/A MAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE BASARALU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 571 401 ... RESPONDENTS (MR.V.SREENIDHI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R2) ---
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.31877 of 2014 dated 9.12.2015.
This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the following:
ORDERS ON IA NO.5 OF 2016 During the pendency of the writ appeal, the appellant No.1 died intestate on April 16, 2016, leaving behind him, his three sons. One of the sons is, already, on record as appellant No.2. Therefore, an application is filed for addition of other two sons.
We are informed that the heirs are major and sui juris and the right to proceed with this writ appeal survives with them.
Therefore, we take note of the death of the appellant No.1 and direct addition of other two heirs, namely, Jayaramu and Mahesh M.C., as appellants in this writ appeal.
The application stands allowed.
The heirs and legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1, as mentioned in the application for substitution, are substituted in stead and in place of the appellant No.1 in this writ appeal.
The learned advocate appearing for the appellants is directed to file the amended memorandum of parties within two weeks.
There will be no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT IN THE MAIN APPEAL 2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated December 9, 2015, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge.
3. The Hon’ble Single Judge set aside the order of the Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Mandya, in Appeal No.3 of 2012-2013, upsetting an order issued in favour of the writ petitioner to put up construction.
4. The writ petitioner is the respondent No.3 before this Court. The contention of the writ petitioner is that the private respondent is making construction on a cart road, which the villagers are using from time immemorial.
5. Whether some right is accrued in favour of the villagers or not, cannot be decided either by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat or in the writ petition.
6. It is for the parties to approach the Civil Court to obtain necessary declaration. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal.
7. The writ appeal stands dismissed.
8. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, all the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are, accordingly, dismissed.
9. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE RV