Writ Petition No. 29728 of 2010 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:651 WP No. 29728 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 29728 OF 2010 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. METAPPA S/O.LATE CHIKKA HEMAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS [SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED] R/AT.GUDIMAVU VILLAGE KUMBLAGODU POST, KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 074. (BY SRI. PRAKASH T HEBBAR.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. 2. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUEV FLOOR, M S BUILDINGS, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH BANGALORE SOUTH OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE. THE SECRETARY K GOLLAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH K GOLLAHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:651 WP No. 29728 of 2010 4.
Legal Reasoning
SRI R SHIVASHANKAR S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.192, SUBHARAM SHETTY ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004. (SINCE DEAD BY LR'S) 4(A) SMT. CHAMPAKA W/O LATE R SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 4(B) SMT. SHILPA D/O LATE R SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 4(C) SHRI BHARATH KUMAR S/O LATE R SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT NO.192 SUBHARAM SHETTY ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 08.01.2025) 5. SHRI VADERAIAH S/O.LATE HULLURAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 5(A) SMT. MANGALAMMA G V D/O LATE VADERAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 5(B) SMT. JAGADAMBA G V D/O LATE VADERAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 5(C) SHRI JAGADISH G V S/O LATE VADERAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:651 WP No. 29728 of 2010 5(D) SMT PUSHPALATHA G V D/O LATE VADERAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 5(E) SHRI KANAKA KUMARA 6. 7. 8. 9. S/O LATE VADERAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT. GUDIMAVU VILLAGE KUMBLAGODU POST,KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O.SHRI VADERAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS SHRI HEMANNA S/O.LATE CHIKKA HEMAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS SHRI HEMAGIRI S/O.LATE VARADAIAH @ KAMANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SL.NOS. 5 TO 8 ARE R/AT GUDIMAVU VILLAGE KUMBLAGODU POST,KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. SHRI DAYALUPAPA S/O.LATE B NANJUNDAPPA MAJOR R/AT.NO.1355/B, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS HAMPINAGARA, VIJAYANAGARA, 2ND STAGE, RPC LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560- 040 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K M PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. M S DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. K P BHUVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A TO C); SRI. C RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 (A TO E); SRI. P M SIDDMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R9; - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:651 WP No. 29728 of 2010 R6 TO R8 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.06.2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER AS PER ANNEXURE A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. Though several contentions were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to impugn the validity of the order at Annexure ‘A’, ultimately, it is argued that the petitioner addressed his arguments in support of his case before the Executive Officer and he was transferred and his successor-in-office has proceeded to pass the impugned order on the basis of the written arguments that had been submitted earlier. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the impugned order is liable to be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:651 WP No. 29728 of 2010 quashed on the ground that it is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the Executive Officer was required to hear the petitioner orally instead of merely considering the written arguments, more so when the earlier Executive Officer had heard the petitioner in full. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute the fact that the arguments were addressed before one Executive Officer who was transferred and the order has been passed by the succeeding Executive Officer on the basis of the written arguments. 4. They also seek to contend that the order which is impugned in this writ petition was also subject matter of W.P. No.13325 of 2011 connected with W.P. No.5365 or 2011 which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 30.06.2022. They, therefore, contend that there is no justification to entertain the plea of the petitioner. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:651 WP No. 29728 of 2010 5. It is no doubt true that the order dated 11.06.2010 has been upheld in W.P. No.13325 of 2011 connected with W.P. No.5365 of 2011. However, since it is the admitted position that the Executive Officer did not hear the arguments of the petitioner and only proceeded to pass the impugned order on the basis of the written arguments, in my view, the impugned ordered insofar as it relates to the petitioner, will have to be set aside and the matter will have to be remitted to the enquiry officer with the direction to him to hear the petitioners and then pass an order on merits. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure ‘A’ is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned and a direction is issued to the Executive Officer to hear the petitioner on 24.01.2025. 7. On that day, the petitioner shall appear before the Executive Officer and the Executive Officer shall hear - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:651 WP No. 29728 of 2010 8. 9. the petitioner and proceed to pass orders within a period of one month thereafter. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to seek for any adjournment. It is also clarified that the petitioner as well as the respondents would be at liberty to put forth all the contentions that are available to them in law.
Decision
10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41