Karnataka High Court
Shri Basavaneppa S/O Bhulappa Huddar vs The Executive Officer on 2 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4986
WP No. 102917 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 102917 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI BASAVANEPPA
S/O DHULAPPA HUDDAR,
AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADANBHAVI,
TQ. BAILHONGAL-591 102,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI SHIVALINGAPPA
S/O DHULAPPA HUDDAR,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADANBHAVI,
TQ. BAILHONGAL-591 102,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI IRAPPA S/O DHULAPPA HUDDAR,
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. MADANBHAVI,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
TQ. BAILHONGAL-591 102,
KATTIMANI DIST. BELAGAVI.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
4. SMT. SAVITRI W/O BASAPPA HUDDAR,
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. MADANBHAVI,
TQ. BAILHONGAL-591 102,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
5. SMT. BHAGYASHREE BASAPPA HUDDAR,
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. MADANBHAVI,
TQ. BAILHONGAL-591 102,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4986
WP No. 102917 of 2022
HC-KAR
6. SHRI MANJU S/O BASAPPA HUDDAR,
AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADANBHAVI,
TQ. BAILHONGAL-591 102,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYAT,
BAILHONGAL-591 102,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. THE SECRETARY,
GRAM PANCHAYAT, MURAKIBHAVI,
BAILHONGAL-591 102,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI BASAPPA
S/O SOMAPPA SANGAMMANAVAR,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADANBHAVI,
TQ. BAILHONGAL-591 102,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. T.G. ANANDSHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3
[ABSENT])
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4986
WP No. 102917 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Sri.M.M.Khannur., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.V.Shivaraj Hireamth., counsel for respondents 1 and 2 have appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.3, either personally or through video conferencing.
As there was no representation on behalf of Respondent No. 3, this Court, vide order dated 25.03.2026, granted time for the appearance of an advocate for Respondent No. 3 and directed the matter to be listed today. It was made clear that, in the event of no appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 3, the Court would proceed to pass orders on the merits of the case. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case.
2. The Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs.
"a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari Quashing the Order dated 07-01-2019 in No. TAPAMBAI/GRAMPAM/APPEAL/12/2012-13 passed by the respondent no.1 Vide ANNEXURE-C and order dated 29/08/2019 (signed on 02/03/2022 in no.
TAPAMBAI/GRAMPAM/APPEAL/147/2018-19 vide Annexure-D passed by 1st respondent and confirm -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4986 WP No. 102917 of 2022 HC-KAR the resolution 05/18 dated 04/04/1997 vide Annexure-A passed by 2nd respondent in the interest of justice and equity.
b) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case including award of cost in the interest of justice and equity."
3. Sri.M.M. Khannur, counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the names of the petitioners were entered in the records on 04.04.1997 in respect of property Nos. 31, 40, 96, 7 and 8 situated at Murakibhavi Village, Bailhongal Taluk, Belagavi District. It is contended that respondent No.3 assailed the said entries before the Executive Officer only in the year 2012, after an inordinate delay of about 15 years. Counsel submits that without condoning such delay, the appeal ought not to have been entertained and the same was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are not pressing Annexure-D. The said submission is placed on record.
4. Per contra, Sri V. Shivaraj Hiremath, counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, draws the attention of this Court to Section 269(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and submits that the prescribed period -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4986 WP No. 102917 of 2022 HC-KAR for filing an appeal is 30 days. He fairly submits that in the present case, the appeal has been filed after a considerable lapse of time.
5. This Court has heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with due care.
6. It is not in dispute that the original order came to be passed on 04.04.1997. However, the appeal under Section 269(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 was filed only in the year 2012. Thus, there is an inordinate delay of nearly 15 years in preferring the appeal. In the absence of any order condoning such delay, the Executive Officer ought not to have entertained the appeal and ought to have rejected the same on the ground of delay and laches.
In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 07.01.2019 passed by respondent No.1, produced at Annexure- C, cannot be sustained in law.
7. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari is issued. The order dated 07.01.2019 (Annexure-C) passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order dated:29.08.2019 -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4986 WP No. 102917 of 2022 HC-KAR passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-D is also quashed. The order dated:04.04.1997 is hereby restored.
8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M) JUDGE AM/-
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 60