N. RAGHURAMA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel and Ms.Deepika Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners at length and Smt.Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) By way of the present petition, the petitioners who claim to be the residents/agriculturists of Hommadevanahalli, Myllasandra and Vittasandra villages, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru have challenged the notification dtd. 26/3/2018 issued by respondent No.3- Under Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department. A copy of the said notification is placed on record at (page 33) whereas, the translation is provided at (page 35) at Annexure-A. By the said notification, His Excellency, the Governor by exercising the powers conferred upon him by Ss. 3 and 9 read with Sec. 349 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 has notified the 'Grama Panchayat's Area' of Doddathoguru including Bettadasanapura Residential area mentioned in Schedule-A along with boundaries mentioned in Schedule-B as the 'Transitional Area' of the Doddathoguru and further, specifying such area to the 'Town Panchayat Area' of Doddathoguru. In the petition, it is urged that the issue involved is affecting all the villagers at large and the development of the farm has come to stand still. In order to protect and safeguard the villagers, the instant petition is filed. The petitioners also make a reference to an earlier Writ Petition No.16604/2018 which was withdrawn on 26/7/2022. There is also a reference to an interim order passed by this Court during the pendency of the said petition. It is stated that the said writ petition was filed at the instance of the President of Panchayat and as his term came to an end, he sought for withdrawal of the petition. There is an order dtd. 20/11/2017 placed on record passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.40686-40690/2017 C/w 36540/2017. In these writ petitions, the earlier notifications issued by the State Government dtd. 18/8/2017 and 11/7/2017 were challenged. The ground raised in these petitions was of non-compliance of Sec. 9 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, the said Act of 1964). The Division Bench, considering the fact that there was a deficiency in compliance with the provisions of Sec. 9 of the said Act of 1964, allowed the petitions and notifications dtd. 18/8/2017 and 11/7/2017 were set aside. At the same time, the interest of the State Government was protected by granting liberty to the State to redo the exercise from the stage of consideration of the objections received opposing constitution of Pattana Panchayat/Municipal Council.

(3.) A perusal of the notification under challenge in this petition is that the State Government to redo the exercise as directed by this Court from the stage of receipt of objections by making reference to the aspects namely, the population of the area, density of the population and percentage of employment.