IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION Nos.36660-661/2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARASEGOWDA H D S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS VICE-PRESIDENT HADAVANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 211.
2. SRI G L RANGASWAMY S/O LAKANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS MEMBER HADAVANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 211.
(BY SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA … PETITIONERS DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT MULTISTOREYED BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR – 572 102.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH TUMKUR – 572 102.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TIPTUR SUB DIVISON TIPTUR TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 201.
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH TURUVEKERE TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 221.
6. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HADAVANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH HADAVANAHALLI DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 221.
7. BASAVANNA DEVARA SEVA TRUST @ HADAVANAHALLI, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT H.N. SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY, S/O NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HADAVANAHALLI, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
8. VENKATESH H.R., S/O RAMANJANEYA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HADAVANAHALLI, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R4; SRI J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE A/W SRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R5 & R6; SRI A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R7 & R8) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-U TO THE WRIT PETITION DATED 28.01.2019 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The first petitioner who is the Vice-President and the second petitioner who is the Member of Hadavanahalli Gram Panchayath, Turuvekere Taluk, Tumkur District, have filed the present petition seeking for issuance of appropriate writ to quash the order of the second respondent at Annexure-‘U’, communication of the third respondent at Annexure-‘V’, communication of the fifth respondent at Annexure-‘AB’, report of the fourth respondent at Annexure-‘T’ and have sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the second respondent at Annexure-‘K’.
2. The facts that are made out by the petitioners is that a decision has been taken as per the Notification at Annexure-‘C’ that the Head Quarters of the Hadavanahalli Gram Panchayath was to be established at Hadavanahalli and that order having become final, at the instance of the respondent nos.7 and 8, proceedings are sought to be re-opened and the respondent-State in that regard has also embarked upon issuance of necessary directions to identify the location of the Head Quarters as per the communication at Annexure-‘S’ and ‘T’. It is further submitted that as the office of the Gram Panchayath at its Head Quarters has already been established at Hadavanahalli, the question of taking any steps as sought to be initiated at this point of time eventually leading to shift the existing building ought not to be permitted.
3. The learned counsel for respondent nos.3, 5 and 6 on the other hand submit that the decision relating to location of the Head Quarters at Hadavanahalli having become final, a building has been constructed in the Head Quarters as per the notification at Annexure-‘C’ and supports the contention of the petitioners.
4. The learned AGA appearing for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 submits that the petition is ill-conceived, the orders/communications sought to be challenged are internal communications and have not culminated into any executable orders and asserts that the present building at Hadavanahalli is in accordance with the notification at Annexure-‘C’ and submits that the notification provides for establishment of Head Quarters at Hadavanahalli and the Tahsildar has furnished a report stating that the building that is constructed in Sy.No.65/P1 is in Hadavanahalli, which is on the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector and hence no orders are required to be passed in the present case and the petitioners apprehension remain as mere apprehensions and the notification at Annexure-‘C’ has been adhered to.
5. The learned counsel for respondent no.7 and 8 however, would contend that the original notification at Annexure-‘A’ dated 04.02.2015 had stipulated Hadavanahalli Janatha Colony as the Head Quarters. The same came to be challenged before the Regional Commissioner. As per the order at Annexure-‘B’ dated 30.03.2015, notification at Annexure-‘A’ was considered and direction was issued that the Head Quarters is to be situated at Hadavanahalli and appropriate direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent nos.7 and 8 that the notification at Annexure-‘C’ is departure from the earlier notification at Annexure-‘A’ and while construing as to whether Head Quarters is situated at Hadavanahalli, the definition of the term ‘Village’ under Section 2 (42) of the Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act needs to be taken note of, which has a different definition as compared to the definition of ‘Village’ under Section 2 (38) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is further contended that what is intended as per the notification at Annexure-‘C’ is the location of Head Quarters at Hadavanahalli village in terms of the boundaries of the village as demarcated under the Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act.
6. Alternatively, the other argument that has been advanced is that the question of location of the Head Quarters at Hadavanahalli in the present location is impermissible as the building in Sy.No.65/P1 is situated in Gomal land and that the procedure prescribed for expending public funds in putting up of building has not been adhered to and accordingly, necessary steps need to be taken to locate the building at an appropriate place and in fact, as per Annexure-‘S’ and ‘T’, that exercise is sought to be undertaken by the revenue officials.
7. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
8. It is relevant to note that on an earlier occasion, the notification at Annexure-‘C’ came to be challenged in W.P.No.16188/2015 and the petition had been dismissed while upholding the notification at Annexure-‘C’. In fact, the learned counsel for petitioners, respondent nos.7 and 8 as well as the counsel representing the State and the local body are at consensus that Annexure-‘C’ is the notification in force and the location of the building which is the Head Quarters as per Annexure-‘C’ is to be strictly in terms of notification at Annexure-‘C’. It is also to be noted that on an earlier occasion when the proceedings were initiated inviting proposals for location of the building, the same was challenged by way of filing W.P.No.45464/2015 and connected matters which came to be disposed off as per the order dated 09.04.2018 and this court while disposing off the writ petition had observed that the Deputy Commissioner ought to examine identification of the land/building that is put up for the establishment of Hadavanahalli Gram Panchayath and record a finding as to whether building that is put up at Hadavanahalli and not at Hadavanahalli Janatha Colony. The court has further observed that if the proposed construction of the building for Panchayath was not coming within the jurisdiction of Hadavanahalli village, necessary steps be taken to identify the suitable land/building by issuing public notices in accordance with law.
9. The dispute is with regard to the location of the present building. The notification at Annexure-‘C’ is clear insofar as it stipulates that the Head Quarters of the Gram Panchayath is to be situated at Hadavanahalli.
10. The location of the present building has been examined by the Tahsildar who has submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner that the site in Sy.No.65/P1 wherein the building is stated to have been put up falls within Hadavanahalli village. The Revenue Inspectors report is also enclosed. The Village Accountant as per his report has taken a similar stand as that of the Tahsildar. The question as to whether the building that is put up in the present location at Sy.No.65/P1 is within the Hadavanahalli village has been answered in the affirmative by the respondent revenue authorities by stating that office is in fact situated within the revenue village of Hadavanahalli. The contention of respondent nos.7 and 8 that the location of office which constitutes Head Quarters should be in the ‘village’ as notified or described under the provisions of Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act and it would not be sufficient if it is located in the revenue village as defined under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, cannot be accepted. The only requirement by taking note of the change from the earlier notification at Annexure-‘A’ would be that the Head Quarters obviously cannot be at Hadavanahalli Janatha Colony since the Regional Commissioner on an earlier occasion has specifically passed an order altering the Head Quarters from Hadavanahalli Janatha Colony to Hadavanahalli and the location is now concluded in the notification at Annexure-‘C’. Once the revenue officials have pointed out that the building that is put up falls within Hadavanahalli and not in Hadavanahalli Janatha Colony, no further enquiry is called for. It is also to be noted that as per Annexure-‘S’ and ‘T’, certain communications have been made and steps taken calling for necessary details with respect to identity of the location as to whether the building with Head Quarters that is put up in Sy.No.65/P1 falls within Hadavanahalli is sought to be considered.
11. However, in the statement of objections filed by the learned counsel appearing for the State, a specific stand is taken that the impugned communication at Annexure-‘S’ and ‘T’ are inchoate and do not in any way give raise to cause of action for the petitioners to file the present petition. It is further submitted that it is the stand of the respondent State that the building that is now put up is as per the notification at Annexure-‘C’ and that there is no proposal for shifting of the Head Quarters of the Gram Panchayath from the present location at Sy. No.65/P1 of Hadavanahalli. Hence, no interference is called for at this stage in the light of the stand of the respondent – State that the location of the Head Quarters is as per the notification at Annexure-‘C’, no further enquiry as such is called for. In fact, this court in the order in W.P.No.45464/2015 and connected matters dated 09.04.2018 at Annexure-‘G’, has clearly stipulated that the only requirement is that the Head Quarters ought not to be situated at Hadavanahalli Janatha Colony, which was the earlier Head Quarters as per Annexure-‘A’. Further direction was given that if alleged construction was not within the jurisdiction of Hadavanahalli village, necessary steps were to be taken to explore fresh place to situate office of the Head Quarters.
12. In the present case, there is no dispute as to the location of the Gram Panchayath Head Quarters at Hadavanahalli village as per notification. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 are seeking to assign a meaning to the term Hadavanahali Village, contrary to the plain meaning as understood by the notifying authority as well as by the respondents. Such a contention by respondent Nos.7 and 8 cannot be accepted nor permitted to be enquired into in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. No grounds are made out to exercise power of judicial review. The stand by the respondent-State is not in contravention of the notification at Annexure-C. It is a fact that the dispute which has consumed several rounds of litigations needs to be put an end to. As regards other allegations that are made out including that the building is situated in Gomal land, it is to be noted that question of location of the present building be it in Gomal land or otherwise is beyond the scope of enquiry in the present petition and the scope of the present proceedings cannot be enlarged.
13. In light of the stand of the State, no further adjudication as sought for by the petitioner is called for. It is also to be kept in mind that location of Head Quarters of the Panchayath are essentially administrative decisions and scope of enquiry in exercise of judicial review is to be restricted.
14. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-