- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23650 WP No. 31724 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31782 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 31724 OF 2017 (LB-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 31782 OF 2017 (LB-RES) IN WP No. 31724/2017 BETWEEN: SMT KHATEEJABI W/O SYED JALAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOMEMAKER, R/O TADASA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. THE TALUK PANCHAYATH BHADRAVATHI TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. TADASA GRAMA PANCHAYATH BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23650 WP No. 31724 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31782 of 2017 4. SRI. KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O KHADER SAB, R/O NEECHE MOHALLA, TADASA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 4(a) AMEENA BI W/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 4(b) FAROOQ S/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 4(c) HYDER ALI S/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4(d) RASOOL SAB S/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4(e) JABIULLA S/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 4(f) KHADAR SAB S/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS PROPOSED RESPONDENTS 4(a) to 4(f) ARE RESIDING AT NEECHE MOHALLA TADASA VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23650 WP No. 31724 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31782 of 2017 4(g) SAHERA BANU W/O BURAD D/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT DONABAGHATTA POST ABUBAKKER BEEDHI NEAR BUS STAND BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301 SHIVAMOGGA. 4(h) MUBEENA BANU W/O RAFEEQ D/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT DONABAGHATTA POST NEAR SALAMULLA MASJID BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301 SHIVAMOGGA 4(i) SALMA BI W/O ALI D/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT DODDABEEDHI TADASA POST ABUBAKKER BEEDHI BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301 SHIVAMOGGA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.SHARATH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI VARADARAJ R. HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4(a to i) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION / ENDORSEMENT DATED 19.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AT ANNEXURE-N TO W.P. AND OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 27.8.2015 ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE-G TO W.P. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23650 WP No. 31724 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31782 of 2017 IN WP NO. 31782/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUBEENABI W/O SYED ASHRAF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCCUPATION:HOME MAKER R/O TADASA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577 301 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2. THE TALUK PANCHAYATH BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER 3. TADASA GRAMA PANCHAYATH BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER 4. SRI KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O KHADER SAB R/O NEECHE MOHALLA TADASA VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23650 WP No. 31724 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31782 of 2017 4(a) AMEENA BI W/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 4(b) FAROOQ S/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 4(c) HYDER ALI S/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4(d) RASOOL SAB S/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4(e) JABIULLA S/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 4(f) KHADAR SAB S/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS PROPOSED RESPONDENTS 4(a) to 4(f) ARE RESIDING AT NEECHE MOHALLA TADASA VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301 4(g) SAHERA BANU W/O BURAD D/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT DONABAGHATTA POST ABUBAKKER BEEDHI NEAR BUS STAND BHADRAVATHI TALUK- 577 301 SHIVAMOGGA. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23650 WP No. 31724 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31782 of 2017 4(h) MUBEENA BANU W/O RAFEEQ D/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT DONABAGHATTA POST NEAR SALAMULLA MASJID BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301 SHIVAMOGGA. 4(i) SALMA BI W/O ALI D/O LATE KASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT DODDABEEDHI TADASA POST ABUBAKKER BEEDHI BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301 SHIVAMOGGA. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI R.SHARATH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3; SRI VARADARAJ R. HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4(a to i)] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION/ENDORSEMENT DTD 19.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-N TO THE W.P. AND OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DTD 27.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO THE W.P. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23650 WP No. 31724 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31782 of 2017 ORAL ORDER In the captioned petition, petitioner is assailing the order passed by the first respondent as per Annexure–N and the official memorandum dated 27.08.2015 issued by the second respondent/Taluka Executive Officer. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner is aggrieved by the recommendation made by 3rd respondent/Taluka Panchayat evidenced at Annexure-G, wherein certain directions are issued to the Gram Panchayat to examine the allotment of vacant site to petitioner. 3. Pursuant to the directions issued vide Annexure-G by Taluka Panchayat, 3rd respondent acting on the said resolution, as part of impugned resolution vide Annexure-H where the members of the Gram Panchayat have resolved the possession delivered to petitioner pursuant to resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on earlier occasion may be recovered from petitioner. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23650 WP No. 31724 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31782 of 2017 said resolution appears to be challenged by petitioner before 1st respondent/Zilla Panchayat. The 1st respondent has dismissed the appeal by issuing an endorsement indicating that appeal is not maintainable. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for private respondent No.4. Perused the records. 5. It is not in dispute that 3rd respondent by way of a resolution resolved to allot a vacant site contrary to mandate provided under Section 210 of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1993’). 6. However, the 2nd respondent, upon taking cognizance of the resolution passed by the 3rd respondent regarding the allotment of the site, proceeded to ratify the said resolution by issuing the order at Annexure-C. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to extract the relevant portion of Annexure-C, which records - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23650 WP No. 31724 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31782 of 2017 the ratification of the resolution passed by the 3rd respondent. The same reads as follows: “GzsÀÈvÀ ¥Àæw” ¢£ÁAPÀ 19-11-2014 gÀAzÀÄ §ÄzsÀªÁgÀ ¨É½UÉÎ 11-00 UÀAmÉUÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¨sÀzÁæªÀw PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¸À¨sÁAUÀtzÀ°è vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå CzsÀåPÀëgÁzÀ ²æà zÉêÉÃAzÀæ£ÁAiÀÄÌ gÀªÀgÀ CzsÀåPÀëvÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ. CzsÀåPÀëgÀ C¥ÀàuÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ §gÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 4) ¨sÀzÁæªÀw vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ vÀqÀ¸À UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ vÀqÀ¸À UÁæªÀÄ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw RweÁ©Ã PÉÆÃA ¸ÉÊAiÀÄzï dBÁBï gÀªÀgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ oÁtzÀ SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå 556 gÀ°è 30*50 Cr C¼ÀvÉ ºÁUÀÆ ²æêÀÄw ªÀÄĩãÁ© PÉÆÃA C±Àæ¥sï gÀªÀgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄoÁt SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå 557 gÀ°è 30*50 Cr C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉPÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ FUÁUÀBÉà UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw¬ÄAzÀ SÁvÉ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀBÁVzÀÄÝ, UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¸À¨sÉ ¤tðAiÀÄzÀ WÀl£ÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀBÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀÄ¢üÃWÀðªÁV ZÀað¹, SÁvÉ §zÀBÁªÀuÉ/SÁvÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀæªÀĪÁVzÀÄÝ, FUÁUÀBÉà UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw¬ÄAzÀ SÁvÉ §zÀBÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, WÀl£ÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwUÁV F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ F jÃw ªÀÄgÀÄPÀ½¸ÀzÀAvÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj / PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆa¸ÀĪÀAvÉ w½¹, ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉUÉ WÀl£ÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀBÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. (PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁj, vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, ¨sÀzÁæªÀw)” 7. Pursuant to a complaint lodged by the 4th respondent before the 2nd respondent/Taluka Panchayat, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23650 WP No. 31724 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31782 of 2017 the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent/Gram Panchayat to take appropriate action. This direction is evidenced by Annexure-G. Acting on the said direction, the 3rd respondent convened a meeting, wherein it was resolved that possession of the allotted site be taken back. 8. However, a perusal of the subsequent resolution, as evidenced at Annexure-H, reveals that the 3rd respondent did not take into consideration the earlier ratification order passed by the Taluka Executive Officer, wherein the initial resolution allotting the site to the petitioner was approved. This ratification order is placed on record at Annexure-C. 9. In light of these material facts, the crucial question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the 3rd respondent could have unilaterally passed a resolution to take back possession without issuing notice to the petitioner, and without first recalling the earlier resolution that stood ratified by the Taluka Executive Officer under Annexure-C. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23650 WP No. 31724 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31782 of 2017 10. The 4th respondent has opposed the petition, contending that the allotment of the site in favour of the petitioner was in contravention of Section 210 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and therefore, no vested right accrued in favour of the petitioner. On this premise, it is argued that there was no requirement for issuance of a show cause notice prior to passing the impugned resolution at Annexure-H. This contention, however, cannot be accepted. Even if the resolution was passed in violation of the statutory mandate, it nonetheless created a de facto right in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, before reversing or nullifying such an allotment, the 3rd respondent was duty-bound to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice. 11. The facts of the present case clearly indicate that the impugned resolution was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Notably, the said resolution fails to make any reference to the ratification - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23650 WP No. 31724 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31782 of 2017 order passed by the Taluka Executive Officer. Once the allotment of the site stood ratified, any action altering or annulling such allotment was required to specifically consider and deal with the ratification order, which has not been done in the present case. 12. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the 4th respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the 3rd respondent could, at most, resolve that possession may be taken from the petitioner. However, such a resolution has not yet been acted upon. In the event the 3rd respondent proposes to implement its resolution, it is incumbent upon it to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and then proceed in accordance with Section 210 of the Act. Until such due process is followed, no precipitative action can be taken against the petitioner. If a show cause notice is issued, it shall be open to the petitioner to produce all relevant documents and submit her explanation. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23650 WP No. 31724 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31782 of 2017 13. Accordingly, the matter is required to be remitted to the 3rd respondent for initiating further proceedings in accordance with law, pursuant to the resolution at Annexure-H. If any action is contemplated against the petitioner, she shall be afforded an opportunity to place on record all relevant materials justifying the original allotment in her favour. No further indulgence is warranted by this Court at this stage. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge any subsequent action taken by the 3rd respondent in pursuance of the said resolution. With these observations writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE MR