[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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."
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3563
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.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3563
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.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3563
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3563
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3563
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
