IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No. 42153 OF 2011(LB-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri. V.Venkataramareddy S/o Late. K. Munivenkata Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Ulavadi Village, Ulavadi Post, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. … Petitioner (By Sri. Sameer S Nagappa, Advocate) AND:
1. Additional Deputy Commissioner Chikkaballapur District.
2. The Tahsildar Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District.
3. The Executive Officer Taluk Panchayat, Chintamani, Chikkaballapur District.
4. The Secretary Gramapanchayat, Uluvadi, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District.
5. Nodal Officer Chintamani, Office of the Deputy Director of Silks, Chadalpura, Chikkaballapur District, Chikkaballapura.
6. President School Development and Management Committee, Chitamani Taluk.
7. Block Education Officer Chintamani Taluk.
8. Managing Director Karnataka Sarvajanika Jaminugala Nigama Niyamita, 2nd Floor, D.C.Office Building, Near City Civil Court Complex, K.G.Road, Bangalore-560 009. ... Respondents (By Sri.Anandishwara, HCGP for R1, R2 & R7: Smt. Sudha D., Advocate for R3 & R4:
R5, R6 & R8 are served but unrepresented.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned notice dated:24.10.2011 vide Annexure-Q, issued by the respondent No.4 Panchayat Development Officer, Ulavadi Grama Panchayat, Chintamani Taluk and direct the respondents to afford opportunity to the petitioner to present his case before passing any coercive order and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for hearing, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 24.10.2011 issued by the Panchayat Development Officer vide Annexure-Q. Earlier, this Court in W.P.No.36560/2010 on 25.07.2011 has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and made the following observations:
“6. Be that as it may, now that the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition, interim order granted earlier is vacated. A direction is issued to the Deputy Commissioner of the District to oversee that necessary action is taken by his supporting officials if some school land has been encroached by any person and some unauthorized construction put up therein. It is open to the revenue authorities to act in accordance with law and also equally open to the petitioner to seek such other remedies as may be available to him elsewhere.”.
2. From the above order, it is very clear that this Court directed the competent authority to evict the petitioner in accordance with law. Pursuant to that, the respondent has issued a notice vide Annexure-Q. The same has been challenged before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.
3 and 4 submitted that it is a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner to give an explanation. Instead of submitting his explanation, he has approached this court. Be that as it may. In terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.36560/2010 disposed of on 25.07.2011, the Panchayath has issued a notice vide Annexure-Q dated 24.10.2011. The petitioner is permitted to file an objection to the show-cause notice vide Annexure-Q within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such a reply is submitted, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
4. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Cm/-
Sd/- JUDGE