CHIKKAJAVAREGOWDA Vs. C.L. LINGAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE intra -Court appeals are filed by the appellant (who was arrayed as respondent 1 in the writ petitions) challenging the order dated 1 -8 -2012 passed in W.P. No. 18066 of 2012 and connected matters filed by writ petitioners -respondents 1 to 7 in these appeals, whereby the writ petitions have been allowed. Facts in brief relevant for the purpose of these appeals are that the appellant is the owner of certain plot of land in the village in question on which he has his house. It is alleged that the appellant has encroached certain portion of the road and brought it within the portion of his house, regarding which a resolution is said to have been passed by the Grama Panchayat on 19 -12 -2011 and pursuant thereto, a notice of the same dated 19 -12 -2011 has been issued by the Panchayat Development Officer to the appellant requiring him to remove the sheets/constructions made in front of his house by encroaching the road or else legal action would be taken against the appellant. Challenging the said notice dated 19 -12 -2011, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 237(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 before the President of Taluk Panchayat, Mandya, which was allowed by order dated 23 -4 -2012 and the notice was set aside with certain directions and also to make entries of certain area of the plot as the area of the appellant and limit the extent of the road to only 15 feet. Challenging the said order, respondents 1 to 7 herein filed writ petitions, which have been allowed by order dated 1 -8 -2012. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals have been filed.

(2.) WE have heard Sri K.L. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Sri R. Pramod, learned Counsel for the private respondents 1 to 7/writ petitioners and Sri B.J. Somayaji, learned Counsel for respondents 8 and 9 and have perused the record.

(3.) SRI Somayaji, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents 8 and 9 has submitted that prior to the passing of the order dated 19 -12 -2011, several notices had been given to the appellant to which he had also responded but still did not remove the encroachment made by him, which necessitated the passing of the order dated 19 -12 -2011. He, however, could not justify the issuance of the notice dated 19 -12 -2011 which is in fact an order requiring him to remove the construction and cannot be termed as a notice requiring the appellant to submit a reply. At this stage, Sri Somayaji, learned Counsel, submitted that one further opportunity may be given to the Grama Panchayat, Mandya, to issue proper notice to the appellant to remove the construction and after receiving the response from the appellant, final orders would be passed by the Grama Panchayat.