P.K. MOHAMMED HANIF PRESIDENT S/O. LATE KUNJANI Vs. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,M.A. USMAN S/O. ABDULLA AND THE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the Petitioner has challenged the legality/validity of the order Annexure -H dated 4.5.2011 in case No. TPS/APPEAL/8/2010 -11 passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District, the 1st Respondent herein.

(2.) THE Petitioner is the President of Suntikoppa Branch of South Karnataka Salafi Movement. He had purchased 10 cents of land in Sy. No. 128/1A1 -P1 comprising of a dilapidated tiled house situated at Uluguli Village, Suntikoppa Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk, under a deed of sale at Annexure -A dated 9.7.2008. He made an application to the Suntikoppa Grama Panchayat (for short 'the Panchayat) seeking permission to hold prayer meetings and other cultural programmes in the existing old structure of the said property. The Panchayat passed a resolution in its meeting held on 10th November 2008 (Annexure -B) permitting the Petitioner to use the structure as a make shift Mosque. It is further contended that the Petitioner made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, Madikeri, for conversion of land for non -agricultural purposes in order to construct a Mosque thereon. The Deputy Commissioner by his order vide in No. LC/43/2009 -10 dated 8.7.2009 (Annexure -C) accorded permission for conversion of the land for non -agricultural purposes by levying conversion fee of.8,900/ - per acre. Thereafter, a building plan was approved by the Panchayat Development Officer. The Petitioner filed an application requesting the 3rd Respondent for grant of permission to reconstruct the building. In response to the said application, the 3rd Respondent granted permission as per Annexure -D dated 6.3.2011 to reconstruct the building on the said land. The Circle Inspector of Police, Kushalnagar, granted permission to use the loudspeaker as per the order at Annexure -E dated 19.1.2011. When things stood thus, the 2nd Respondent filed an appeal challenging the permission at Annexure -D before the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent has passed the impugned order allowing the appeal reserving liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh application for reconstruction of the building on the said land. The 1st Respondent in his order has observed that if such an application is filed, the Panchayat should consider the same and pass appropriate order thereon in accordance with law.

(3.) THE 2nd Respondent in his application seeking vacation of the interim order has contended that the Secretary of the Panchayat has not brought to the notice of the members of the Panchayat that he has granted licence dated 6.3.2011 permitting the Petitioner to construct the building. Hence, he filed an appeal to the lst Respondent under Section 269(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'), challenging the licence. The 1st Respondent has allowed the appeal and has set aside the permission with liberty to file a fresh application to the Panchayat for grant of permission. The property in question is situated in the residential area of Suntikoppa town. Unless the plan is legally sanctioned, the Petitioner cannot put up the construction on the said land. The Panchayat Development Officer has no jurisdiction to grant permission to construct a building within the Grama Panchayat area.