[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4986
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4986
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4986
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
