- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10965 WP No. 103987 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 103987 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI RAJKUMAR S/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOLEHOSUR – 591 118, HOLEHOSUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. VISHAL S/O. RAJKUMAR PATIL, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOLEHOSUR – 591 118, HOLEHOSUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRUTHVI K. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, RPTD BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MALAPRABHA PROJECT MIP NO.3 DHARWAD-580001, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. THE OFFICE OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, HOLEHOSUR RPTD BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HOLEHOSUR – 591 118, HOLEHOSUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3-SERVED) Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10965 WP No. 103987 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19.02.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE E AND TO ISSUE VPC ENTRIES TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF ALLOTMENT IN BLOCK NO. K10 AND BLOCK NO. K7 AT KURAGUND P.K. VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI AS PER THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2012 BRG NO. VIBHOOAA/RHN/12-13 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 VIDE ANNEXURE B IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the R3 to consider the representation dated 19.2.2025 vide Annexure-E and to issue VPC entries to the petitioners in respect of allotment in Block No. K10 and Block No.K7 at Kuragund P.K. Village, Tq: Bailhongal, Dist: Belagavi as per the Order dated: 26.12.2012 brg No. ViBhooAa/RHN/12-13 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B, in the interest of justice and equity. b. Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners were residents of Holehosur Village, Bailhongal Taluk, Belagavi District and in view of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10965 WP No. 103987 of 2025 Malaprabha flood the petitioners were displaced. In pursuance of which respondent No.2 had allotted a site at Kurangund.P.K. in Block No.K7 and K10. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner had made a representation on 6.12.2022 at Annexure-D to make the entry of the name of the petitioner in the VPC records. This was followed by another representation dated 25.02.2025 at Annexure-E, both of which were not considered by respondent No.3. It is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. Though notice has been issued and served on respondent No.3, respondent No.3 has not entered appearance. 4. This is not a stray case, in several matters coming up before this Court the Panchayat Development Officers are unrepresented as also there are no panel advocates for the said panchayat who could be served with a notice. Learned AGA also is unable to accept - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10965 WP No. 103987 of 2025 the notice on behalf of Panchayat, since he is not designated to do so. 5. Respondent No.1-the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj is requested to look into the same and formulate appropriate Standard Operating Procedure for the representation of the panchayat before this Court as also the trial Courts. Since more often than not, they being unrepresented orders would have to be passed ex parte. 6. Coming back to the present matter, representation has been made by the petitioner on 6.12.2022 and 25.2.2025 at Annexure-D and E, the same has not been considered till date. 7. Whenever any representation has been submitted by a citizen to any authority, it is required that the said Representation be acted upon and necessary orders be passed, either accepting or rejecting the Representation submitted in accordance with law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10965 WP No. 103987 of 2025 Needless to say, if an order of rejection is passed, the same would have to be accompanied by reasons. Neither having been done, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A mandamus is issued, directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 6.12.2022 at Annexure-D and 25.2.2025 at Annexure-E and pass necessary orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. iii. Though the above petition is disposed, an affidavit of the Principal Secretary as regards the general direction to be filed within four weeks from today. iv. Re-list on 24.9.2025. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56