IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.46271/2017(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
S. N. NANDEESHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O NANJUNDASWAMI, R/AT NO.388/389 SHINDHAGATTE VILLAGE K R PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PIN-571426.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571421.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT-571421 3. THE TAHSILDAR K R PET TALUK MANDYA DITRICT-571422 4. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SILNERE HOBLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH K. R. PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, PIN-571426.
5. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 6. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH MANDYA-571421.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C. KAVITHA HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5; SRI B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R6) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION EFFECTIVELY, MADE ON 17.3.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, B AND C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 17.03.2017 as per Annexures-A, B and C, to provide minimum approach road to the petitioner’s house situated at No.388/389, Shindhagatte village, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner’s father had obtained licence from the fourth respondent to construct a residential house and the authorities allotted house No.388/389. The petitioner is staying in the said house along with his wife, four children and age old father and the children are studying in K.R.Pet Ashirwad Aided High School. It is further case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent/Grama Panchayath demolished the deck and put up an illegal, unlawful compound wall by blocking the approach road to the petitioner’s house. Therefore, petitioner gave representations as per Annexures-A, B and C to the respondent authorities. The said representations have not been considered till today. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
3. The respondents have not filed any objections.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that father of the petitioner constructed a residential house during the year 1983 as per the licence issued by the fourth respondent vide Annexure-H and the fourth respondent also developed the existing approach road by providing permanent deck under the Karnataka Suvarna Gramina Yojane and subsequently, without any reason, overnight, the fourth respondent put up the compound wall and blocked the approach road as could be seen from Annexures-J and J1.
6. He further contended that the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector made spot inspection and conducted survey of the property and he found the existing approach road and subsequently the fourth respondent blocked the road overnight by putting up compound wall on both sides, as per Annexure-F. The action of the fourth respondent is in utter violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Deputy Commissioner being the head of the District, the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar, being the competent authorities, ought to have considered and passed orders on the petitioner’s representation. The same has not been done. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
7. Per contra, Smt. H.C.Kavitha, learned High Court Government Pleader, on instructions from respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the representation of the petitioner vide Annexures-A, B and C will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6. The submission is placed on record.
8. Sri B.J.Somayaji, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 6, on instructions, submits that the petitioner’s father Nanjundaswamy already filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.404/2014 against respondent No.4 and the grama panchayath. The said suit is still pending for consideration. He would contend that the petitioner has demolished the compound wall which was put up by the grama panchayath and criminal case was registered against him. The same is pending. Thereafter, once again, grama panchayath reconstructed the compound wall. Since the suit is pending, the petitioner has to adjudicate the suit, along with his father. Hence he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner has constructed a house during the year 1964 with the permission of fourth respondent and residing in the said house with his wife and children. The fourth respondent, infact, has developed the road under Ashraya Scheme and subsequently, blocked the approach road, illegally. The same is evident from the report of the Revenue Inspector.
10. Though several contentions are urged by learned counsel for both the parties, without adverting to merits and demerits of the case, it is suffice to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.03.2017 vide Annexures-A, B and C. It is the duty of the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.4 to 6 and pass appropriate orders. The same has not been done. Therefore, petitioner has made out a case to issue writ of mandamus as prayed for.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.03.2017 as per Annexures-A, B and C and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.4 to 6 including the grama panchayath. All contentions urged by the petitioner as well as grama panchayath are kept open to be urged before the Deputy Commissioner/competent authority and same shall be considered by the authorities, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm