K RAMAIAH Vs. DIVL COMMR BANGALORE DIVN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Arti.226 of the Constitution, has been referred to a Division Bench by Venkataramiah, J.

(2.) The petitioners are residents of Vijanapura village. They have prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 (the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, and the Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Development Board, Bangalore South) to restrain respondents 3 and 4 from acting as Chairman and member respectively of the Village Panchayat of Vijanapura.

(3.) The facts which led up to this petition are briefly these: By a declaration made under S.3(1) of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Panchayat village called Vijanapura was constituted comprising of the revenue villages, Vijanapura, B. Narayanapura and Mahadevapura. On 7-10-1974 the Divisional Commissioner issued a notification (Ext-A) proposing to constitute a separate Panchayat Village consisting of the revenue village of Vijanapura and another Panchayai village called B. Narayanapura consisting of the revenue villages of B. Narayanapura and Mahadevapura. On 2-12-1974 he issued a notification (Ext.'B') under clause (b) of sub-Sec. (2) of S.3 of the Act, declaring that the area included in the Panchayat village, Vijanapura, shall cease to be a Panchayat village under the Act. On the same day he issued another notification (Ext.'C') under S.3(1) of the Act, declaring two Panchayat villages as proposed in the notification, Ext.A. By another notification of the same date he appointed the Extension Officer '(Panchayat) of the Development Block, Bangalore, to be the Administrator of the two newly constituted Panchayat villages. The aforesaid notifications were challenged in WP.No.6596 of 1974. Jagannatha Shetty, J., allowed the writ petition partly and quashed the notifications Ext.A, C and D; but allowed the notification, Ext.B, to stand undisturbed. The appeal preferred against the aforesaid decision, was dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing. Hence that decision has become final.