Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Malledevirappa, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash a resolution dated 27.6.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent - Village Panchayath, Lakya Village, and the approval dated 16.8.2012 by the 2nd respondent - Taluk Panchayath, Chikmagalur. The petitioner claimed to be the absolute owner in possession of properties bearing Sy.No.20/2 and Sy.No.20/3 of Kyathanabeedu village, Lakya Hobli, Chikmagalur Taluk. He had filed a suit O.S.No.144/2012 on the file of the Civil Judge, Chikmagalur for permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and the Zilla Panchayath in respect of the said properties. The petitioner also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for temporary injunction. The main grievance was that the impugned resolution and approval were passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The respondents, including the State of Karnataka, Taluk Panchayath, Village Panchayath, and Sree Someshwara Jeernodhara Samithi Trust, were represented by counsel. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the resolution and approval were passed without notice to the petitioner, which is a clear violation of natural justice. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the resolution dated 27.6.2012 and the approval dated 16.8.2012, and directed the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner before taking any further action in the matter.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Notice - Resolution passed by Village Panchayath affecting property rights without notice to the owner is violative of principles of natural justice - The petitioner, owner of the property, was not issued any notice before the resolution dated 27.6.2012 was passed by the 3rd respondent - Village Panchayath and approved by the 2nd respondent - Taluk Panchayath on 16.8.2012 - Held that the resolution and approval are liable to be quashed (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the resolution passed by the Village Panchayath and the approval by the Taluk Panchayath are liable to be quashed on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the resolution.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The resolution dated 27.6.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent - Village Panchayath and the approval dated 16.8.2012 by the 2nd respondent - Taluk Panchayath are quashed. The respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioner before taking any further action in the matter.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- Notice requirement before passing resolution affecting property rights
- Writ of certiorari
