Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajeshwari vs Taluk Panchayath on 27 November, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42766
WP No. 43682 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 43682 OF 2018 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT RAJESHWARI
W/O LATE MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT MEDIGESHI,
MADIGESHI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. TALUK PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
MADHUGIRI,
TUMKUR DISTRICT
Digitally signed 2. MEDIGESHI GRAMPANCHAYATH
by REPRESENTED BY ITS
NARAYANAPPA PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
LAKSHMAMMA MEDIGESHI HOBLI,
Location: HIGH MADHUGIRI TALUK
COURT OF TUMKUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA
3. SHIVARAJU
S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT MEDIGESHI VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. B.P. RADHA., AGA FOR R2;
SMT. VIJAYA M N., ADVOCATE FOR R3.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42766
WP No. 43682 of 2018
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER QUASHING
THE ORDER NO. KPR(A) 01/2018-19 DATED 18.8.2018 AT ANNEX-G
PASSED BY THE R-1 AND THE LICENSE NO. 146502 DATED
29.11.2017 AT ANNEX-B ISSUED BY R-2 AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL,
ARBITRARY AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYE OF LAW AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order quashing the order No.KPR(A) 01/2018-
19 dated 18.08.2018 (Annexure-G) passed by the
1st respondent and the License No.146502 dated
29.11.2017 (Annexure-B) issued by the 2nd
respondent as the same are illegal, arbitrary and
cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1
& 2 not to grant license to the 3rd Respondent for
construction in the property bearing Khatha No.617
of Medigeshi, Madhugiri Taluk more than the actual
measurement of 30ft X 26ft of the said property as
the property of the petitioner bearing khatha
No.945/1 measuring 30ft X 50ft of Medigeshi,
Madhugiri Taluk has been encroached by the 3rd
respondent consequent upon quashing the order at
Annexure-B & G and grant all the consequential
benefits.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that vide Annexure-G the respondent No.2 has
issued khatha in favour of respondent No.3 for an
NC: 2023:KHC:42766
extent of 45 x 26 feet, when there has already been
in acquisition of a portion of the said land and as
such, the Khatha of the entire land could not have
been issued.
3. Learned counsel for respondent would however
submit that the petitioner has filed a suit in
OS No.395/2018 seeking for a declaration that
respondent No.3 herein and one other person has
encroached upon the property of the petitioner.
4. If that be so, the parties would be bound by the
decree that may be passed in the said suit.
Reserving liberty to the parties to the place the
judgment and decree passed in the said suit before
respondent No.2. The petition stands disposed.
5. This court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE
