Balappa vs the State of Karnataka

Balappa vs The State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jul 01, 2025

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1639164

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1639164
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: M.I.Arun
Decided On: Jul 01, 2025
Case Number: WP/201691/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Balappa

Respondent

The State of Karnataka

Excerpt

.....of the impugned notice or otherwise, in respect of land bearing sy no.02, measuring 10 acres 35 guntas out of 4 acres 27 guntas yeramasala village. this petition, coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, order was made therein as under: -3- coram: hon'ble mr. justice m.i.arunoral order(per: hon'ble mr. justice m.i.arun) an allegation is made on the petitioner that, he has blocked the drainage water and deviated it on the public road and a complaint has been made by the general public. hence, he has been directed to remove the said obstruction, failing which, it is stated in the impugned notice that, action will be initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the karnataka gram swaraj and panchayat raj act, 1993.2. the case of the petitioner is that, he has not made the said obstruction and the notice has been wrongly issued to him.3. the lis involves disputed question of facts, which cannot be decided by this court. the question is whether the petitioner has illegally obstructed flow of drainage water or not. -4-4. for the aforementioned reasons, the writpetition is hereby dismissed. it is needless to state that dismissal of the writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to approach the civil court, if he so desires. sd/- (m.i.arun) judge sdu list no.: 1 sl no.: 19 ct:si

Full Judgment

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.201691 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: BALAPPA S/O LOKAPPA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. YERAMASALA VILLAGE, JERABANDI GRAM PANCHAYAT LIMITS, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI BHEEMSINGH CHAWAN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AND: SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, -2-
4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
5. THE PRESIDENT,
6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE TALUK PANCHAYAT OF DEVADURGA TQ. DEVADURGA, …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 26-03-2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-C B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM TAKING ANY COERCIVE STEPS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN PURSUANCE OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE OR OTHERWISE, IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY NO.02, MEASURING 10 ACRES 35 GUNTAS OUT OF 4 ACRES 27 GUNTAS YERAMASALA VILLAGE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: -3- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) An allegation is made on the petitioner that, he has blocked the drainage water and deviated it on the public road and a complaint has been made by the general public. Hence, he has been directed to remove the said obstruction, failing which, it is stated in the impugned notice that, action will be initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he has not made the said obstruction and the notice has been wrongly issued to him.

3. The lis involves disputed question of facts, which cannot be decided by this Court. The question is whether the petitioner has illegally obstructed flow of drainage water or not. -4-

4. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ

petition is hereby dismissed. It is needless to state that dismissal of the writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, if he so desires. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19 CT:SI

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2025 Same Parties Balappa vs The State of Karnataka Same Judge M.I.Arun