- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34661 WP No. 20652 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20652 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI S A MALIK S/O LATE S A KADIR AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT KARANJI EXTENSION COURT ROAD, MALUR TOWN 563310. 2. SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY S/O APPANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.13 PUNYADHAMA COMPOUND, THINDLU KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD NEAR TENNIS VILLAGE KODIGEHALLI, BANGALORE 560097. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUDHAKAR G V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAVING OFFICE AT TALUK PANCHAYATH Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34661 WP No. 20652 of 2026 ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562106. 2. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KALLUBALU GRAM PANCHAYATH JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 560066. 3. INDIRA RAMAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS W/O SRI H N RAM PRAKASH RESIDING AT NO.264, 17TH CROSS JANATHA BAZAR SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU 560080. 4. SRI K VINOD KUMAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O M KRISHNAPPA RESIDING AT NO. 9 13TH CROSS JAGRUTHI COLONY J P NAGAR NEAR PUTTENHALLI BENGALURU 560078. 5. SRI H M HARISH S/O H N MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.418, 4TH MAIN 5TH CROSS, 3RD PHASE J P NAGAR BANGALORE 560078. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34661 WP No. 20652 of 2026 6. SRI T S NAGARAJ S/O T K SUBBARAO AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.2079 EAST END A MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560041. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS MANASA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.S. PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R-1 IN V.P.C APPEAL NO. 15/2025-26 WHICH IS AT ANNX-R INSOFAR IS CONCERNED TO THE PETITIONERS AS ILLEGAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34661 WP No. 20652 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioners, who are the second and third respondents in an Appeal in VPC No.15/2025-26 under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [for short, ‘the Act’] pending with the first respondent, have sought for quashing of such appeal. Sri Sudhakar G V, the learned counsel for the petitioners, argues in support of this request, asserting: [a] that there are complicated questions of title and possession because of a dispute raised by the fourth respondent who, without instituting a proper suit, has filed the present appeal calling in question the revenue entries in favour of the petitioners; [b] that the Panchayath Development Officer is prejudiced against the petitioners because such Officer is acting in cohorts with the fourth respondent and because the Officer is acting in cohorts, a Report is filed in the pending appeal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34661 WP No. 20652 of 2026 proceedings even without the first respondent calling for such Report; [c] that the fourth respondent had prevailed upon the concerned for disruption of electricity to the petitioners’ property under a ruse and the petitioners could get their electricity connection restored only upon this Court's intervention after four months of such disruption; [d] that consequent to the first respondent's orders, there would be immediate action to the petitioners' prejudice. Sri Sudhakar G V also submits, relying upon the Orders of this Court on 03.07.2024 in the writ petition in W.P. No.10118/2024, that the very filing of the appeal is bad in law. Ms. Manasa, a colleague of Sri M S Prakash accepts notice for the first respondent, and the learned counsel is heard for the disposal of the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34661 WP No. 20652 of 2026 This Court must observe that the first respondent should consider not only the afore but also every other ground that the petitioners [as second and third respondents] would offer in opposition to the appeal and pass orders that would meet the eyes of the law. The first respondent, an Authority entrusted with the appellate jurisdiction under the Statute, is enjoined with the responsibilities to so act and if there is an occasion to opine, despite this Court's observation that the Officer is not just and reasonable in discharging the statutory responsibility, the Officer undoubtedly will know of the consequences that would be. As such, this Court is not inclined to truncate the pending proceedings and this Court is persuaded only to dispose of the petition with the observation that the first respondent shall consider every circumstance, including whether jurisdiction could be exercised if there are complicated questions or - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34661 WP No. 20652 of 2026 facts involved which must be decided by the civil Court by a reasoned order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this Order with the first respondent. This Court, in the peculiar circumstances canvassed is persuaded to opine that the Authorities shall not act on the final decision whichever way it is for a period of four [4] weeks from the date of such order. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-