- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6131 WP No. 25459 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 25459 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B K DEVANNA SON OF LATE B L KEMAPNNA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT BARGI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GUNDLUPETE TLAUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571111 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOGI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BARGI GRAMA PANCHAYATH GUNDLUGPET TALUK CHAMARJANAGARA DISTRICT 571111 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. U VINAY RAGHAVENDRA., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO. BA.GRA.PAM.NO/2024-25 DATED. 11.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-G), 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 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6131 WP No. 25459 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is challenging the notice dated 11.09.2024 - Annexure-G, which reads as under: “§, UÁæ, ¥ÀA.¸ÀASÉå/2024-25 ¢£ÁAPÀ:- 11/09/2024 w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ £ÉÆÃnøï UÀÄAqÀÄè¥ÉÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ §gÀV UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÁå¦ÛAiÀiÁ §gÀV UÁæªÀÄzÀ UÁæªÀĸÀÜgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ MvÀÄÛªÀjAiÀÄÄ vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀAvÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖà CzÀgÀAvÉ F »AzÉ ºÀ®ªÀÅ ¨Áj vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ªÀÄÆ® zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ ¸À°è¸À®Ä w½¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀAvÉ vÁªÀÅ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÆ® zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£Àß ¸À°è¹gÀÄwÛj. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:03/09/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²°¸À¯ÁV vÁªÀÅ vÀªÀÄä zÁR¯Áw ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¥ÀƪÀð-¥À±ÀéªÀÄ 33 CrUÀ½zÀÄÝ EzÀgÀ°è 3 Cr UÀ°è PÀ¼ÉzÀÄ PÀlÖqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrgÀÄwÛj DzÀj ¸ÀzÀj UÀ°èAiÀÄ°è dUÀÄ° vÀqÉUÉÆÃqÉ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ DzÀÝjAzÀ F £ÉÆÃnøï vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 7 ¢£ÀzÀ M¼ÀUÉ dUÀÄ° vÀqÉUÉÆÃqÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÀĪÀÅUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ. MAzÀĪÉÃ¼É vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À¢zÀÝ°è - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6131 WP No. 25459 of 2024 ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ »vÀzÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ MvÀÄÛªÀj vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½AiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ.” 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Panchayath Development Officer (PDO) has no jurisdiction to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has encroached upon certain public property. 3. A perusal of said notice would indicate that the PDO has ultimately called upon the petitioner to remove the encroached portion failing which he would submit a report to the competent authority to initiate proceedings for encroachment. 4. In my view, such a notice cannot be found fault with. If on the basis of the report to be submitted by the PDO, the competent authority were to initiate proceedings, obviously the petitioner would have a right to put forth all such contentions including the contentions that he has not encroached upon any - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6131 WP No. 25459 of 2024 portion of the public property. I am therefore of the view that there is no justification to entertain this writ petition and the same is therefore dismissed. 5. It is, however, made clear that if proceedings are initiated pursuant to a report of the PDO as contemplated in the impugned demand notice, the competent authority shall consider the objections raised by the petitioner and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 85