IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.65886/2016(LB-RES) BETWEEN:
MR. NORBERT D’ SOUZA S/O LATE MARCEL MATHAIS D SOUZA AGE 53 YEARS, R/AT BENJANAPADAVU OPP: CANARA ENGINEERING COLLEGE KODMANNU VILLAGE BEJANAPADAVU POST, BANTWAL TALUK DK.DISTRICT-574219.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA V. R., ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE TAHASILDAR BANTWAL TALUK BANTWAL, D.K.DISTRICT-574 219.
3. MERAMAJALU GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MERAMAJALU, BANTWAL TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574143.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANDEESHWARA, HCGP. FOR R1 & R2, SRI. G.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT-3 TO ISSUE DOOR NUMBER TO THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE LAND MEASURING 04 CENTS IN SY.NO.2/1P3 AS PER LICENSE DATED 15.10.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYATH, BANTWAL, DATED 30.01.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd Respondent to issue Door Number to the residential house constructed by the petitioner on the land measuring 04 cents in Sy.No.2/1P3 as per License dated: 15.10.2003 vide Annexure-D and direction issued by the Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayath, Bantwal, dated:30.01.2015 in No.TapamBan/Appeal/02/2013-14, vide Annexure-A.”
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has constructed a residential house on the land measuring 4 cents in Sy.No.2/1P3 of Kodman Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K.District. The respondent No.3-Panchayat has issued license to put up construction as early as on 15.10.2003. Pursuant to that, the petitioner has constructed a residential house by investing huge amount. Subsequently, the petitioner has given an application to the Panchayat for allotment of door number to his house. On 28.12.2013, his application has been rejected by the respondent No.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayat in Appeal No.2/203-14. The Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat by order dated 30.1.2015 vide Annexure-A has directed as follows:
“2003-04 gÀ°è ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀlÖqÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 10/2003-04 gÀAvÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÀlÖqÀ ¤«Äð¹ §½PÀ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀzÀ £ÀA§æ C¥ÉÃQë¹ C£ÉÃPÀ ¨Áj CfðZÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ CfðUÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸À PÁgÀt ¤ÃqÀzÉ, UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀAvÉ ¸ÀªÉð £Àqɹ ¸ÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹zÀ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÆß ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀzÉ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ PÀzÀ £ÀA§æ ¤ÃqÀzÉ EgÀĪÀ ªÉÄÃgÀªÀÄd®Ä UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £ÉʸÀVðPÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ vÀvÀézÀ G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¤«Äð¹zÀ PÀlÖqÀPÉÌ PÀzÀ £ÀA§æªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ.”
3. Inspite of directions issued by the Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat, the respondent No.3 has not allotted the door number to the house of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for implementation of order dated 30.1.2015 vide Annexure-A.
4. Sri. Prasanna Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after obtaining license from the respondent No.3, the petitioner has constructed the residential house in Sy.No.2/1P3 of Kodman Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K.District. Inspite of specific directions from the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, the respondent No.3 has not given number to the house of the petitioner. There is a statutory duty cast upon the authority under Section 73 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”). Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat submits that pursuant to order dated 30.1.2015 vide Annexure-A, the Panchayat has issued an endorsement vide Annexure-H stating that one Alvin D’Souza has filed a complaint stating that there is boundary dispute in respect of respondent No.3-Panchayat and Ammunje Grama Panchayat.
After concluding the survey, the respondent No.3 will consider for issuing the door number to the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the State has reiterated the statement of objections filed by the State.
7. By re-joinder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that his case is nothing to do with the boundary dispute that endorsement issued without giving any notice to the petitioner.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
9. It is not in dispute that vide Annexure-A dated 30.1.2015, the Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat has issued directions as stated above. The only defence of the respondent No.3 is that there is boundary dispute in respect of property bearing Sy.No.2/1. After deciding the boundary dispute, the respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner for issuing the door number. The endorsement, which is issued by the Panchayat vide Annexure-H dated 27.11.2015, as of today, neither they have issued the door number nor they have taken any action to find out regarding the boundary dispute. Without giving any opportunity, the endorsement vide Annexure-H has been issued.
10. In view of the above, this Court is directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with all relevant records of the case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Thereafter, the respondent No.3 after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and also taking into consideration the order dated 30.1.2015 passed by the Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat vide Annexure-A is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of petitioner filing a fresh representation.
If the respondent No.3 wants any assistance from the respondent No.2, the Tahsildar, the respondent No.2 is directed to cooperate with the respondent No.3 in accordance with law.
10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DM