- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15430 WP No. 102937 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.102937 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI PUNDALIKAPPA S/O KHANDOBA CHAVAN, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: YENDIGERI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BAGALKOTE. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE TALUKA PANCHAYAT, BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.21 11:41:27 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15430 WP No. 102937 of 2017 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT NEERABUDIHAL, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 5. SHRI TIPPANNA S/O YALLAPPA UPPAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: YENDIGERI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 6. SHRI ARVIND S/O PANDAPPA NEELAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: YENDIGERI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 7. SHRI BHIMAPPA P. POMMAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: EX-PRESIDENT, GRAM PANCHAYAT NEERABUDIHAL, TQ. BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. PRAKASH HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; PETITION AGAINST R7 IS DISMISSED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT MADE IN NO.TaPB/GraP/Asti/Enquiry/01/2016-17 (ANNEXURE-J), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15430 WP No. 102937 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent No.3, Taluka Panchayat. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property and it was inherited from his forefathers and since 1975, the property was held by the petitioner or his predecessors in title. In the year 2014, the e-Khata is made in respect of the petition property by the Panchayat on the application filed by the petitioner. 3. This being the position, an unconcerned person has filed a complaint contending that the property does not belong to the petitioner and it is the property of the Panchayat. The complaint is investigated by Executive Officer of the Taluka Panchayat and impugned order is passed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15430 WP No. 102937 of 2017 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Taluk Panchayat on a specific question put by the Court would submit that if it is the property of the Panchayat, then the Panchayat has the jurisdiction to look into the allegation under Section 72 of Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘Act, 1993’) of and there is no provision of law under the said Act conferring power on the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat. 5. Section 72 of Act, 1993 confers the power on the Gram Panchayat to remove encroachment on the property of the Panchayat. Under Section 2(15) of Act, 1993 “Gram Panchayat” means the Gram Panchayat established under this Act. 6. Section 4 of Act, 1993 provides for declaration of Gram Panchayat area, the establishment of Gram Panchayat and Section 5 provides of constitution of the Gram Panchayat. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15430 WP No. 102937 of 2017 7. On a combined reading of aforementioned provisions, one can conclude that the power to remove encroachment conferred on Gram Panchayat under Section 72 of the Act, 1993 would mean the power conferred on the Gram Panchayat members as an elected body as provided under Section 5 of the Act, 1993. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is without jurisdiction. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed in part. ii. Impugned order dated 03.03.2017 passed by respondent No.3 is set-aside. iii. The “Gram Panchayat” under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 shall look into the complaint and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner as well as respondents No.5 and 6. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15430 WP No. 102937 of 2017 iv. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. v. All contentions kept open. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42