Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Jyothi, claiming to be the absolute owner of house properties bearing Nos. 542/1 and 542/1A situated in Maddur, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 03.06.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent/Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, Maddur, in G.P.Appeal No.3/2021-22. The impugned order vacated an interim order that had been granted earlier to stall further construction undertaken by the 4th respondent, Sri B.C.Somaligegowda. The petitioner contended that the Executive Officer vacated the interim stay without affording her an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The respondents, including the State of Karnataka, the Executive Officer, the Panchayat Development Officer, and the 4th respondent, were represented by counsel. The Court, after hearing the parties, found that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner, which was a clear violation of natural justice. Consequently, the Court quashed the order dated 03.06.2021 and restored the interim order that had been granted earlier. The matter was remitted back to the Executive Officer for fresh consideration, with a direction to hear all parties and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Interim Order - Vacation Without Hearing - Section 269 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - The petitioner challenged the order dated 03.06.2021 passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Maddur, which vacated an interim stay granted earlier in G.P.Appeal No.3/2021-22, without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court held that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and set it aside, restoring the interim order. (Paras 1-5) B) Natural Justice - Right to Hearing - Vacation of Interim Order - The Court observed that the Executive Officer could not have vacated the interim order without hearing the petitioner, as it affected her rights. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration after hearing all parties. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat could vacate an interim order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and whether the impugned order was sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 03.06.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent in G.P.Appeal No.3/2021-22 is quashed. The interim order granted earlier is restored. The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration after hearing all parties, and a fresh order shall be passed in accordance with law. No opinion on merits.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Interim order
- Gram Panchayat
- Construction dispute
- Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act
- 1993
