[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Panchayat Development Officer vs The Taluka Panchayat Executive Officer on 2 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4989
WP No. 103468 of 2024
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. 103468 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAMAPPA M DODDAMANI
@NAVI S/O. MALLAPPA DODDAMANI
OCC. HAIR CUTTING (HADAPADA COMMUNITY)
R/O. SINDI KURUBET,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI 591306.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
BELAGAVI DISTRICT 590001
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
THE OFFICE OF ASST. COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI,
SUB DIVISION BELAGAVI,
DIST. BELAGAVI 590001
4. PRAKASH HOLEPPAGOL
THE THEN TAHASILDAR,
THE OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR,
GOKAK TALUK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591306.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4989
WP No. 103468 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. YALLAPPA NARAYANA MUDALAGI
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
SINDI KURUBET PANCHAYAT,
SINDI KURUBET VILLAGE,
GOKAK TALUK, DIST. BELAGAVI 591306.
6. PRESIDENT OF GRAM PANCHAYAT
SINDHI KURUBET,
SINDHI KURUBET VILLAGE,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI 591306
7. MARUTI KEMPANNA JADHAV,
MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT,
SHINDHI KURUBETA,
R/O. OMAKARESHWARA TOTA,
SHINDHI KURUBETA,
TQ.GOKAK DIST.BELAGAVI-591310
8. BHIMAPPA MALAAPPA BIRNALI,
MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYT,
SHINDHI KURUBETA,
R/O VIDHYANAGARA,
SHINDHI KURUBETA,
TQ.GOKAK, DIST.BELAGAVI-591310.
9. GAJANA SHIVAPPA PATIL,
MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYT,
SHINDHI KURUBETA,
R/O BEHIND BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE,
SHINDHI KURUBETA,
TQ.GOKAK, DIST.BELAGAVI-591310.
10. FAKIRAPPA BALAPPA BHOVI,
MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYT,
SHINDHI KURUBETA,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4989
WP No. 103468 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/O BHOVI GALLI, SHINDHI KURUBETA,
TQ.GOKAK, DIST.BELAGAVI-591310.
11. GRAM PANCHAYAT
SHINDIKURUBET,
R/BY SECRETARY,SHINDIKURUBETA,
TQ.GOKAK, DIST.BELAGAVI-591310.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 to R3:
SRI.V. SHIVRAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6 AND R11;
SRI. R.K.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SIR.GANESH RAIBAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R10)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Venkatesh M.Kharvi., counsel for the petitioner,
Sri.P.N.Hatti., HCGP for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.R.K.Kulkarni.,
counsel for respondent No.4 have appeared in person.
2. The Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs.
"(a) Issue any other Writ, order or directions to the
respondents to pay compensation of Rs.55,03,019/-
to the petitioner for illegal demolition of
house/building and encroachment of petitioner's
land in Sy.No.250/A by the Tahasildar, Panchayat
Development Officer, President of Gram Panchayath,
members of Gram Panchayat Sindi Kurubet village of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4989
HC-KAR
Gokak Taluk, Belagavi District, vide Annexure-P in
the interest of justice and equity.
(b) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing Respondent No.1 take
disciplinary action against the Respondent no.3 to 4
in the interest of justice"
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with
care.
4. The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks a
direction to the respondents to pay compensation of
Rs.55,03,019/- for the alleged illegal demolition of the
petitioner's house/building and encroachment of land bearing
Sy.No.250/A, purportedly carried out by the Tahasildar,
Panchayat Development Officer, President and members of the
Gram Panchayat of Sindi Kurubet Village, Gokak Taluk, Belagavi
District. The petitioner has also sought a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing respondent No.1 to initiate disciplinary
action against respondents 3 and 4.
5. The primary relief sought by the petitioner is for
grant of compensation. Such a claim would necessarily involve
adjudication of disputed questions of fact, examination of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4989
HC-KAR
evidence, and determination of liability, which cannot be
effectively undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
7. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum
for redressal of his grievance and seek appropriate relief, if so
advised and if permissible in law.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
AM/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70
