High Court Karnataka High Court

G D Sreenivasa Gowda vs The Chief Executive Officer on 23 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
G D Sreenivasa Gowda vs The Chief Executive Officer on 23 November, 2009
Author: H N Das
1 W1'. I (>934/{)7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 

DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE H.N.N_A.GAMOHAN'  "

WRIT PETETEON NO:16984/2G:QZ(;;'EiAREAS).V    

BETWEEN:

1 G DSREENIVASA GOW.__DA   
S/O CHANDRAGiRE D(3L!;EG'Q\l\«f_D.A"=f'»  _
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS A * " _  _
2 MURALIDHARASTO  1j'VEE:$j':VAsAGD\}VDA
AGED ABQt._:_T 3;:2»T'Y:EA+*«:s';_   

PETv§T!ONE'RSVT_&'«2 ARE.__ 1 T

RESIDENCE OF~.'GQPAL=A_P'U_RA VELALGE

I\/iAND'.fA 'TALUK 3.. DnsT..R':c'T
 . . I  ...RET:T:oz\2ERs

- V.(__By s;_m~§:.::e<Av'.JA NAG"/&RAJ«,«vAdv., FOR
 I\/':.STV'APP»A=&'T..AN MAE-IADEVASWAMY)

R1 RT":-IE"{:3E.-HET: EXECUTEVE OFFICER

 MA?'~1VD7H'A TALUK PANCHAYATH
" : RMANDYA

 'DDRALARURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

% GOPALAPURA, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DESTRICT
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

#*"}'



2 WP. I (3'}?%-I/()7

3 A VENKATAPPA S/O G ANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O GOPALAPURA VILLAGE
I\/IANDYA TALUK, I\/IANDYA DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED BY LR$:

(a) KRISHNAPPA s/0 vENK.ATAPEA,I"-._
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,  

(b) SAVITi--IRAI\/I1\/iA,'\__/If/O vEI$;I:A,  ~-- 
AGED ABOUT SSEEARSI. 'A 

(0) UMESH,S/O vENI<ATAPPA',:" 
AGED ABOUT 34%'-EAEi~S§ --. _  '

Id) ASWPITH/3I1ID'7SI¥i)..\I7'EI\IKATA:.I5PAI;.I " 
I AGED A._E30"U'T'..__32YEARS."_  A

(e)  AS: edki-A  V'\/E'NKATAPP~.A.--,v 
 AGED 'A..E5QD'T%2ayEAF2Cs._--

ALL. AR_E'R/0' G_O'I-EA-EDA':-3'.IJ'RA VILLAGE,
¥\/IANDY/~\,TAI_UK.._ NI.AN».D);"A DISTRICT.

.»AIgnENDED As?-ER coum ORDER
-QATED H-..1no.2oo9."' ***** 
A   FIESPONDENTS

(EI}r_  Adx/., FOR R1 & R2;
sn.I<LEMPEGGwIDA, Adv., FOR

 _ sn.I<:v.NAF:AS:MHAN,Adm, FOR R3(b)tG(e))

' ._  I TII'iIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 8: 227

GOFV ITHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R1,

  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, I\/IANDYA TO, PANCHAYATH,

  '=MA--I\IDYA DT. 19.7.2007 VIDE ANNEXJ. AND DISIVIISS TI-IE
 _ VAPF'EAI_ FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

a-»-»

3 W.]’. |t3′}84/ii”?

THJS WRIT PETITEON COMING ON FOR Pi3tEL!Ml?€i;5i’RY

HEARING N ‘B’ GROUP THJS DAY, THE COURT

FOt.LOW!NG:~ it

The 2″” respondent — Gopaiapura Garanriar i?ianc»ha’yat”t:

a notice on 23.052007′ to the 3″‘ respondenit’directing’V:to}re«mQve a

shed put up by him encroaching aiiieportion of.’t’hei_:pubiei}c road.
Aggrieved by this notice, the res_pon_dent.._ii!..e”d~an appeal before
the 15′ respondent andthe same.vcametto:be’.ia!|io\rJed’V'”on 19.07.2007

as per Annexure — ice this -iryrit petition.’ ”

2. on bothrrthfe side and perused the

entire writ papers. V V’

3. H in the irnpudned order at Annexure ~ 3, it is stated that

Q1.’e'[\hCLJgh~’:,IHeJ?t$’1ENS’ noiecvorfipiaints by the pubtic against the 3″‘

re’spo’ndent.:the~i2″‘?: respondent — Grarna Panchayath issued the

_ notice’toieeremoyeilthie construction put up by hirn. This is factuaiiy

viii’-«.._.uin’correct. Grama Panchayath at the instance of the petitioners

other residents in the vicinity issued notice on 23.05.2007

regneove the unauthorized construction made by the 3″

A» “resepondent. Evert otherwise, the Grama Panchayath is entitted to

Qissax

4 we I (mi/m
initiate action whenever there is obstruction to a public road.

Secondty, in the impugned order, it is stated that there is-.__no

necessity of a road in front of the house of 3″‘ respondent.

respondent inspected the spot and without notice to ‘

and without hearing the affected parties, the..1_S_§ respioindeanit» piassewd

the impugned order. On this ground atone, the

iiabie to be quashed. Accordingly; t f’o_E.iowingv.t 2 V

h
ORDER”

2) The writ petition A–i4s”‘:i?erepy _

EE) date’dvv-‘:’§.O7.2007 passed by the
if Annexore — ‘J’ is hereby
quashed .ii’ i i
‘The rn’att–erLi_s___rereanded to the 13’ respondent for fresh
V in accordance with Eaw after providing an
to the petitioners and the respondent ¥\tos_2
3:,

V'”‘.C.)rdered accordingty.

Sd/~
JUDGE