Karnataka High Court
Sri.Basayya Sangayya Matapathi vs The Executive Officer on 6 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3563
WP No. 103309 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 103309 OF 2018 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BASAYYA SANGAYYA MATAPATHI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: SERVICEMAN AND
AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YAKKUNDI, TALUK: SAUNDATTI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, SAUNDATTI,
TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE PRESIDENT,
GRAM PANCHAYAT, YAKKUNDI,
Digitally signed
TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
by
PREMCHANDRA
MR
Location: HIGH
3. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
GRAM PANCHAYAT, YAKKUNDI,
TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SMT. KAMALAWWA
W/O. MADIWALAYYA MATAPATHI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. YAKKUNDI, TALUK: SAUNDATTI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
5. SMT. BASAWWA
W/O. MAHANTAYYA MATAPATHI,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3563
WP No. 103309 of 2018
HC-KAR
R/O. YAKKUNDI, TALUK: SAUNDATTI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. LINGESH.V.KATTEMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R5)
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:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.H.M.Dharigond., counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.Shivaraj Hiremath., counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.Lingesh V.Kattemane., counsel for respondents 4 and 5 have appeared in person.
2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayers:
"A) A Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash impugned resolution dated 11.08.2012 passed by the second and third respondents vide ANNEXURE-E & order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the 1st respondent under No.TA.PUM.SA/ GRA.PUM/ APPEAL-13/ 2014-15 vide ANNEXURRE-F. B) Any other writ or direction from this Hon'ble Court is deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3563 WP No. 103309 of 2018 HC-KAR
3. The short facts are as follows:
It is stated that one Basavaraj Gurubasavaswamy Hiremath was the absolute owner of the property bearing VPC No.470 situated at Old Yakkundi village. The said property was purchased by one Basayya Parawayya Yadahalli under registered sale deed dated 23.11.1964. The said property was submerged under the Malaprabha project and the same was re-allotted to Basayya Parawayya Yadahalli vide order dated 23.04.1972 and thereafter, the Gram Panchayat assigned renumber as 548 in place of 470. By virtue of allotment, said Basayya Parawayya Yadahalli was in actual possession and enjoyment of the property.
It is stated that Sri.Basayya Parawayya Yadahalli relinquished the said property bearing VPC No.548 to one Mr.Sangayya Bhadrayya Matapathi who is none other than the petitioner's father and thereafter the petitioner's father was in actual possession and enjoyment of the said property during his lifetime. The petitioner's father died on 05.12.1986 leaving behind his wife, petitioner and another son namely Badraiah. -4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3563 WP No. 103309 of 2018 HC-KAR After the death of petitioner's father, petitioner, his brother and mother were in actual possession and enjoyment of the said property and made an application before the second respondent to enter his name in the property extract. Accordingly, the second respondent passed a resolution on 13.08.2010 and directed the office concerned to enter the name of the petitioner in the property extract.
As things stood thus, the second respondent without issuing notice to the petitioner, passed a resolution and divided the property as 548[A] and 548[B] and entered the names of the fourth and the fifth respondent in the property extract vide resolution dated 11.08.2012. Aggrieved by the said resolution, the petitioner challenged the same before the first respondent. The first respondent without considering the relevant documents, dismissed the appeal on 19.05.2017. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S. No.413/2014 and the same is pending for consideration. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of Writ petition.-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3563 WP No. 103309 of 2018 HC-KAR
4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.
5. Counsel Sri.H.M.Dharigond., for the petitioner in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that by a resolution dated 13.08.2010 the petitioner's name was entered in the property extract in respect of a property bearing No.548. However, he argued that, subsequent resolutions were passed vide Annexures - E and F without issuing notice to the petitioner and the same are unsustainable in law. Hence, they may be quashed.
6. Counsel Sri.Lingesh V.Kattemane., for respondents 4 and 5 justified the action on the part of the Panchayat. He argued by saying that the petitioner has admittedly filed a suit seeking declaration and the same is pending for consideration. Hence, quashing of the resolutions may not arise for consideration. Counsel therefore, submits that the petition is devoid of merits and it may be dismissed.
7. Counsel Sri.V.Shivaraj Hiremath., for respondents 1 to 3 justified the action on part of the Panchayat. Counsel -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3563 WP No. 103309 of 2018 HC-KAR therefore, submits that the petition is devoid of merits and it may be dismissed.
8. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.
9. The issue falls within the narrow compass and relates to the resolutions passed by the Panchayat. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Having authorized the entry of the petitioner's name, the authorities could not legally pass subsequent resolution to include the names of respondents 4 and 5 without providing notice or an opportunity to be heard to the petitioner, rendering the action unsustainable. To be more precise, the subsequent resolution to enter the names of respondents 4 and 5 is unsustainable, as it was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without prior notice to the petitioner, contrary to the original resolution. Hence, this Court deems it proper to quash the resolution and the order vide Annexures - E and F.
10. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The resolution dated 11.08.2012 passed by the second respondent and third -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3563 WP No. 103309 of 2018 HC-KAR respondents vide Annexure - E and order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure - F are quashed. As the suit is pending, the parties to the lis are at liberty to adhere their grievance before the Trial Court.
11. With above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M) JUDGE RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35