- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10138 WP No. 49113 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 49113 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNA NAIKA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS 1(a) SIDDA NAIK S/O LATE KRISHNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O MUNDRE TANDA, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577110. 1(b) KAMALA BAI D/O LATE KRISHNA NAIK W/O MALLEH NAIK AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O KORANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANAVARA HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-553103. 1(c) MAHESHWARI @ MAMATHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA NAIK W/O SANNARAMU G.M. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O DESANI VILLAGE, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573103. 2. NAGARAJA N S/O KRISHNA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BANK EMPLOYEE PRESENTLY WORKING AT KARWAR Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10138 WP No. 49113 of 2013 AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MUNDRE ASHOKNAGAR SHIMOGA CITY-577201 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S V PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR ENQUIRY-1 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 3. THE TALUK PANCHAYATH TARIKERE TALUK TARIKERE-577228 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER TARIKERE CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 4. KUDLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUDLUR TAREKERE TALUK CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577228 REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER 5. ANNAPPA NAIKA S/O RAMA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O MUNDRE TANDYA AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI TARIKERE TLUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10138 WP No. 49113 of 2013 (BY SRI. A T VENKATESH .,ADVOCATE FOR C/R5; SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 5.10.2013 VIDE ANN-K ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND COMMUNICATION DATED 21.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANN-M THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Sri.Venkatesh Arabatti, learned counsel has entered appearance for respondents No.1 and 2. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the notice dated 5.10.2023 produced as Annexure- K to the Writ Petition issued by the R3 and communication dated 21.10.2013 issued by the R2 addressed to the R4 bearing No.Complaint/Dy.Lok/MYS/598/2008/ARE/1 produced at Annexure-M to the writ petition. b. Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems it appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity. c. Award costs of this proceedings. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10138 WP No. 49113 of 2013 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that action is proposed to be taken against the petitioner in terms of a complaint lodged by a Neighbour with the Hon’ble Lokayukta, in pursuance of which direction had been issued by the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent on 21.10.2013 and in pursuance thereof, a notice has been issued by 3rd respondent on 5.10.2013 at Annexure-K alleging that the petitioner has encroached upon 25 feet public road. 4. The submission of Sri.S.V.Prakash counsel for the petitioner is that 3rd respondent could not have acted on the instructions of 4th respondent. 3rd respondent ought to have acted independently and taken necessary action, if so required and on that basis, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and Annexures- K and M are required to be quashed. 5. A perusal of Annexure-M would indicate that is a correspondence issued by the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent bringing to the notice of the 4th - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10138 WP No. 49113 of 2013 respondent the complaint which had been received by the Lokayukta calling upon the 4th respondent to look into the matter and take action, if necessary. In pursuance thereof, there is a notice at Annexure-K which has been issued calling upon the petitioner to furnish such documents as may be available with the petitioner and the say of the petitioner as regard the allegation which has been made against the petitioner. A reply by way of a legal notice has also been issued on 9.10.2013. 6. A perusal of the notice indicates that the same has been issued under Section 67, 68, 69 and 72 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. A perusal of Section 72 indicates that the Gram Panchayat can take action as regards any encroachment upon public street and open sites. Thus, 3rd respondent has two jurisdiction to issue notice at Annexure-K which has been replied to by the petitioner. It is not that 3rd respondent has acted only at the directions of 4th respondent, but notice - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10138 WP No. 49113 of 2013 has been issued independently as per the applicable statute. Therefore, no fault can be found in relation to the said notice which has been issued. 7. Though the petitioner had replied to the same way back in the year 2013, considering that there is a lapse of nearly 12 years, the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh reply to Annexure-K within a period of 15 days from today, that is on or before the 26.03.2025. If the said reply along with documents are furnished by then, 4th respondent is directed to consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 8. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29