Sri Munikakappa vs Sri Munireddappa

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided May 27, 2024

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1899896

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/1899896
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Decided On: May 27, 2024
Case Number: WP/48941/2018

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sri Munikakappa

Respondent

Sri Munireddappa

Excerpt

.....panchayathi that it is unlawful, improper or causing injustice to the public, under section 237(3) of karnataka panchayat raj act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act’), they can approach the adhyaksha of the zilla panchayat by giving a complaint. -4-3. sri m. b. chandrachooda, learned counsel appearingfor respondent no.1 has submitted that as the petitioners have no locus-standi to file the writ petition to challenge the resolution passed by the taluk panchayathi, they are not the aggrieved persons. he further contended that the interim order granted by this court on 04.02.2019 has become infructuous as the order has already been implemented.4. in view of the above, without expressing any opinionon the merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed of. liberty is reserved for the petitioners to approach the adhyaksha of the zilla panchayath by lodging a complaint under section 237(3) of the act within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.5. if such a complaint is lodged under section 237(3) of the act, the competent authority is directed to consider the same in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of the complaint. -5-6. in view of the disposal of the main petition, all pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. sd/- judge ha list no.: 1 sl no.: 48

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 48941 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI MUNIKAKAPPA S/O LATE GULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
2. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH S/O NARAYANAPPA (PAPAIAH) AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3. SRI. MANJUNATH V M

S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF Digitally signed by BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114. HEMALATHA A …PETITIONERS Location: High Court of (BY SRI. RAMA MOHAN M.,ADVOCATE) Karnataka AND:

1. SRI MUNIREDDAPPA S/O LATE GANGAPPA -2-

2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATHI OFFICE

3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SHIVANAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATHI

4. THE UNDER SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-01.

5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANASOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-01 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M B CHANDRA CHOODA., ADVOCATE FOR R1: SRI. M.S DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE ALLOTMENT MADE IN FAVOUR OF R-1 BY THE R-2 TO AN EXTENT OF EAST TO WEST 60 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 56 FEET AS PER ANNEXURE-E DATED 18.09.2018.GRANT INTERIM ORDER RESTRAINING THE R-1 IN INTERFERING WITH THE TEMPLE PROPERTY AS PER KHATA NO.356 MEASURING EAST TO WEST 110 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 57 FEET WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES MENTIONED -3- HEREIN AS PER SCHEDULE TILL DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the resolution dated 18.09.2018 passed by respondent No.2/Taluk Panchayathi, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District vide Annexure-E.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.2 and 3 has contended that the petitioners are not aggrieved persons. If the petitioners have any grievance regarding the resolution passed by respondent No.2/Taluk Panchayathi that it is unlawful, improper or causing injustice to the public, under Section 237(3) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), they can approach the Adhyaksha of the Zilla Panchayat by giving a complaint. -4-

3. Sri M. B. Chandrachooda, learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.1 has submitted that as the petitioners have no locus-standi to file the writ petition to challenge the resolution passed by the Taluk Panchayathi, they are not the aggrieved persons. He further contended that the interim order granted by this Court on 04.02.2019 has become infructuous as the order has already been implemented.

4. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion

on the merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed of. Liberty is reserved for the petitioners to approach the Adhyaksha of the Zilla Panchayath by lodging a complaint under Section 237(3) of the Act within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. If such a complaint is lodged under Section 237(3) of the Act, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the same in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of the complaint. -5-

6. In view of the disposal of the main petition, all pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2024 Same Parties Sri Munikakappa vs Sri Munireddappa Same Judge H.T. Narendra Prasad