Karnataka High Court
Peetambar Rao vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
WA No.200031 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO.200031 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
PEETAMBAR RAO
S/O NAGAPPA NAVADAGI,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GANAPUR,
TQ: CHINCHOLI,
DIST: KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by (BY SRI R.S.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
BASALINGAPPA SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATES)
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATRAJ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 02.
2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
4. MAHADEVAPPA
S/O REVANSIDDAPPA PATIL,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
WA No.200031 of 2024
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BEDAGAPALLI,
TQ: CHINCHOLI,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 307.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SIDDALING REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY,G.A., FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 29.11.2023 IN W.P.NO.202466/2023 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING AND HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
04.06.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
RAJESH RAI K. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is filed challenging the legality and
validity of the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.202466/2023, wherein the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
2. The facts that arise for consideration and are
borne out from the pleadings are as under:
The appellant is a resident of Ganapur Village,
Chincholi Taluk, Kalaburagi District. The Gram Panchayat
of Karachkhed consists of five villages namely Karachkhed,
Chatrasali, Buragapalli, Yaragapalli and Ganapur. The said
Karachkhed Gram Panchayat also consists of Taluka
Panchayat constituency, Zilla Panchayat constituency
seats, Hospitals, Revenue Offices and all other facilities.
Since many years, Ganapur Village has been within
Karachkhed Gram Panchayat. Things stood thus, the State
Government passed the delimitation notification on
19.01.2015 and in the said notification, Ganapur Village,
which was in Karachkhed Gram Panchayat, was added to
the newly constituted Gram Panchayat, i.e., Garagapalli.
The appellant and other villagers, after coming to know
the same, filed their objections before the Deputy
Commissioner on 29.01.2015.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
3. However, respondent No.3-the Deputy
Commissioner, on 04.02.2015 issued an impugned
notification to include the appellant's village Ganapur, in
Garagapalli Gram Panchayat, thereby the Karachkhed
Gram Panchayat was reduced to four villages. The village
Ganapur has been deleted from Karachkhed Gram
Panchayat and the same was included in Garagapalli Gram
Panchayat. By such delimitation, Garagapalli Gram
Panchayat consists of six villages.
4. Aggrieved by the said notification issued by
respondent No.3-the Deputy Commissioner, the villagers
and the appellant, who was a Panchayat member, filed the
petition before respondent No.2, requesting to delete
Ganapur village from Garagapalli Gram Panchayat by
indicating the aforesaid reasons.
5. Respondent No.2-the Regional Commissioner,
vide order dated 10.03.2015, rejected the petition filed by
the appellant on 05.03.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellant filed W.P.No.202613/2015 before this Court,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
wherein this Court issued rule Nisi and granted interim
order on 07.04.2015. Thereafter, the said writ petition
came to be allowed and directed respondent No.2 to
rehear the matter and pass orders regarding reconstitution
of headquarters. Thereafter, the Regional Commissioner,
after issuing notice to aggrieved parties, including the
appellant, passed an order on 07.02.2018 in file
No.SamKam/PrAaAaGu/JeePam/331/2014-15, rejecting
the petition filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said
order, the appellant once again approached this Court by
filing a petition in W.P.No.201004/2018 and the said writ
petition was disposed of directing the respondents to
consider the representation of the appellant within a
period of two weeks' from the date of receipt of the
representation. However, the said order of learned Single
Judge of this Court is challenged by respondent No.4
before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by filing an
appeal in W.A.No.200090/2020, which came to be
disposed of by setting aside the order passed in
W.P.No.201004/2018 and thereby remanding the matter
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration vide
order dated 14.12.2020.
6. After remand, the said writ petition came to be
dismissed by confirming the order passed by respondent
No.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant
preferred an appeal in W.A.No.200190/2021 and the said
writ appeal came to be dismissed reserving liberty to the
appellant to submit one more representation to the
Regional Commissioner by directing them to consider and
pass orders in accordance with law. In pursuance with the
liberty given by this Court in W.A.No.200190/2021, the
appellant submitted the representation to respondent No.2
and the same came to be allowed by respondent No.2 vide
order dated 29.03.2022 and thereby, the village Ganapur
separated from Garagapalli village and included in
Karachkhed village.
7. In pursuance of the order passed by respondent
No.2, respondent No.3 passed a Gazette Notification on
31.05.2022 and included Ganapur village in Karachkhed
Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved by the said order passed by
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
respondent No.2 dated 29.03.2022, respondent No.4
preferred a petition in W.P.No.201281/2022, wherein the
learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition
by setting-aside the impugned order passed by respondent
No.2, for having passed the said order without
jurisdiction. However, liberty was reserved to the
appellant to move the representation before respondent
No.3. Thereafter, the appellant gave a representation to
respondent No.3 in pursuance of the liberty granted in
W.P.No.201281/2022 on 09.02.2023.
8. When the matter was pending before the
Deputy Commissioner for hearing the parties, without
issuing notice to the parties, on 04.07.2023, respondent
No.3 withdrawn the Gazette Notification dated
31.05.2022, by modifying the order of respondent No.2 in
pursuance of the request made by respondent No.4 as per
the representation dated 04.08.2023. However, when the
matter was listed on 04.08.2023 before respondent No.3,
the appellant once again made a representation to
respondent No.3 by questioning withdrawal of Gazette
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
Notification. Hence, respondent No.3 had sought a report
from the Tahsildar regarding the infrastructure available to
the respective villages and accordingly, the Tahsildar
prepared a report and submitted the same to respondent
No.3. Nevertheless, the appellant has filed a reply to the
Tahsildar's report by filing one more application to
respondent No.3. However, respondent No.3 rejected the
application filed by the appellant vide order dated
21.08.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
appellant once again filed a petition in
W.P.No.202466/2023 before the learned Single Judge of
this Court. The learned Single Judge, upon hearing the
appellant and the respondents, dismissed the writ petition
vide order dated 29.11.2023. Challenge to the same is lis
before this Court.
9. We have heard the learned Senior counsel Sri
R.S. Ravi for appellant so also learned AGA for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and learned Senior counsel Sri Ameet Kumar
Deshpande for respondent No.4.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
10. It is the primary contention of the learned
Senior counsel for the appellant that the learned Single
Judge grossly erred while passing the impugned order
dated 29.11.2023 since the same is against the well
settled principles of law. According to the learned Senior
counsel, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider
the aspect that under the Constitutional Scheme Part IX
which envisages democratization of gross rules level
administration, as per Article 243B of the Constitution of
Indai, Panchayats have to be mandatorily constituted in a
State at the Village, Intermediate and District levels. As
per Article 243C of the Constitution of India, the State
must, as far as practicable, maintain a similar ratio
between the population residing within the territory of a
particular Panchayat and the number of seats allocated
across all Panchayats in the State. Further, as per Article
243-D of the Constitution of India, each Panchayat must
be divided into territorial constituencies and seats in
proportion to their population must be reserved for
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayats.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
11. Looking into the Territorial Constituencies of
Panchayats, Garagapalli Panchayat has population of 4977
and Karachkhed Panchayat has population of 6396.
Therefore, the population residing within the territory of
Panchayat and considering 400 population for one seat of
Gram Panchayat under Section 4 of the Gram Swaraj and
Panchayatraj Act, the delimitation of Panchayat area is not
in consonance with part IX of the Constitution of India.
12. Learned Senior counsel would further
vehemence his arguments by relying on the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam (DMK) Vs. Secretary Governor's
Secretariat and Others reported in (2020) 6 SCC 548,
wherein it is held that, while making delimitation, the
object of maintaining ratio between the population and
territory cannot be effectively achieved without any
research or proposal by the delimitation commission and
delimitation exercise for the constitution of local bodies at
all levels is properly undertaken as per criteria for
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
delimitation of constituencies. Accordingly, the
respondent-State passed Act No.25/2021 to amend the
Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for
short 'the Act, 1993) and to amend the Karnataka Gram
Panchayat to establish the constitution of the delimitation
commission and its functions and powers. In view of the
amendment brought to the Act, 1993, the delimitation
commission was established w.e.f. 18.09.2021. Therefore,
unless there is a recommendation by the Delimitation
Commission, any notification relating to the delimitation of
constituencies of local bodies would be lapsed. Hence, the
impugned order of learned Single Judge and the order of
the Deputy Commissioner are without jurisdiction and
contrary to the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution of
India.
13. Learned Senior counsel would further contend
that the Karachkhed Panchayat area is consisting of 5
villages (Karachkhed-1871, Burugpalli-869, Chattarsal-
1007, Iragpalli-1297 and Ganapur-1352) and the total
population is 6396 as per 2011 census, whereas Garagpalli
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
Panchayat area is consisting of 5 villages (Garagpalli-
1390, Bhaktampalli-1086, Pardarmotakpalli-811,
Ramteerth-663 and Bedagepalli-1027) and the total
population comes to 4977. As per Section 5 of the Act,
1993 "prescribes one member for every 400 populations
or part thereof of the Panchayat area" and as per Section
4 of the Act, 1993, a population compromising a village or
group of villages having population of not less than 5000
and not more than 5000 is required to be declared as
Panchayat area. In view of said provisions, the ratios
divided between the members are unequal. He also
emphasizes to the proviso of Article 243C (1) and (2) of
the Constitution of India, which specifically deals with
"providing that the ratio between the population of the
territorial area of a Panchayat at any level and the
members of the seats in such panchayat to be filled by
election shall, so far as is practical, be the same
throughout the state" and Clause (2) of Article 243-C "All
the seats in the Panchayat shall be filled by the persons
chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
the Panchayat area and, for this purpose, each Panchayat
area shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such
manner that the ratio between the population of each
constituency and the number of seats allotted to it shall,
so far as practicable, be the same throughout the
Panchayat area." Accordingly, he prays to allow the
appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
14. Per contra, Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande,
learned Senior counsel representing on behalf of
respondent No.4 contends that the process of delimitation
of inclusion, deletion, removal and addition of villages
from one Gram Panchayat to another Gram Panchayat is
the absolute prerogative of the State and is a legislative
act. The learned Senior counsel would contend that this is
the third round of litigation by the appellant, who had
earlier approached this Court with a similar prayer on the
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for the
inclusion of Ganapur Village in Garagapalli Gram
Panchayat from that of Karachkhed Gram Panchayat.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
Considering the grounds urged in the earlier round of
litigation, learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.201004/2018 came to the conclusion that the
grounds urged are purely question of facts and the same
cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By
enunciating his argument, he would contend that it is the
authorities, who are in a better position by an act to the
legislature to take such decisions in their wisdom and
accordingly, included the Ganapur village in Garagapalli
Gram Panchayat instead of Karachkhed Gram Panchayat.
Though, the petitioners preferred an appeal against the
said order in W.A.No.200190/2021, the Coordinate Bench
of this Court had not find any merit in the said appeal and
accordingly, dismissed the same. However, liberty was
extended to the petitioners to file the representation to
appropriate authority and directed the authority to
consider the same and pass suitable orders without being
influenced by the orders passed in the said writ appeal.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
15. Learned Senior counsel further vehemence his
arguments that from the years 2015-2022, no such new
developments caused and there is no new cause of action
arises to the appellant to approach this Court by filing a
fresh writ petition in the year 2023 i.e.,
W.P.No.202466/2023. In W.P.No.201281/2022 filed by
respondent No.4 and one Tukkappa, the learned Single
Judge held that the order passed by respondent No.2
dated 29.03.2022 is nothing but an order reviewing his
own order for which there is no provision under the Act,
1993 and as such, set-aside the same as it is one without
jurisdiction. However, liberty granted in terms of the
order passed in W.A.No.200190/2021 to respondent No.7,
i.e., the appellant herein, to approach the competent
authority under the Act, 1993, for redressal of his
grievance. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the
concerned authority and the authority passed the
Notification dated 31.05.2022, against which the appellant
preferred the writ petition before the learned Single Judge
and the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
petition, which has been impugned in this writ appeal.
The article, which was published in the Prajavani
newspaper, relied on by the appellant as per Annexure-
'V4' is statement of the appellant himself and as such, the
same cannot be considered for any purpose.
16. Learned Senior counsel would further contend
that the photographs produced by the appellant also do
not clarify the jurisdiction of the veterinary hospitals. He
would further submit that as rightly held by the learned
Single Judge, the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner is a purely legislative act and as such, the
same cannot be questioned by the appellant/petitioner.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ appeal.
17. Learned AGA adopts the argument of learned
Senior counsel for respondent No.4 and accordingly prays
to dismiss the writ appeal.
18. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels for
the respective parties so also perusal of the document
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
made available before us the only point that would arise
for our consideration that:
"Whether the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.202466/2023 dated 29.11.2023
suffers from illegality and requires any
interference by this Court?"
19. As could be seen from records, the action of
respondent No.3 i.e., the Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi has been questioned by the petitioner time and
again and negated after giving opportunity to the
petitioner to raise issue once again before the authorities
and shifting of the Ganapur Village to Garagapalli Gram
Panchayat has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge
in the earlier round of litigation so also in the impugned
order challenged in this writ appeal. The order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner dated 21.08.2023 depicts that
there is no such fresh notification issued under Section 4
of the Act, 1993 and to that effect, a separate notification
will be issued. Such being the position, we are of the view
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
that the petitioner failed to place any materials to take a
different view that was taken by the learned Single Judge.
Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge has extensively
dealt with the aspect in respect of delimitation,
constitution, re-constitution, inclusion and addition of
Panchayat areas under one Panchayat to another
Panchayat, which is the prerogative of legislation and an
act of legislation. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge
has considered the scope and ambit of Article 243B, 243C,
243K and 243O of the Constitution of India which deals
with the Constitution of Panchayat and came to the
conclusion that the composition of Panchayats fall under
the Article 243C of the Constitution of India which provides
to the legislative of the State to make provisions in respect
of the composition of Panchayats. Hence, it is rightly held
by the learned Single Judge that such power is vested and
given specifically to the legislature and it is at the wisdom
of the legislature by following due process of law to issue
notification for inclusion, deletion, addition, constitution,
re-constitution and delimitation of Panchyat to include a
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4453-DB
village from one Gram Panchayat to another Gram
Panchayat. All the above contentions raised by the
appellant have been dealt with by the learned Single
Judge. The appellant failed to make out good grounds to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
20. In that view of the matter, we answer the point
raised above in the negative and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The writ appeal is dismissed being devoid of
merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
HKV
List No.:1 Sl No.:2
CT:BN
