The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the resolution dated 27.6.2012 as per Annexure-A passed by the 3rd respondent –Village Panchayath and also the approval made by the 2nd respondent on 16.8.2012 as per Annexure-B.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner in possession of the property bearing Sy.No.20/2 of Kyathanabeedu village of Lakya Hobli, Chikmagalur Taluk, so also the property bearing Sy.No.20/3 of the same village. He filed a suit – O.S.No.144/2012 on the file of the Civil Judge, Chikmagalur for the relief of permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 herein and also the Zilla Panchayath, Chikmagalur in respect of the said properties. On the application made by the petitioner under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the trial Court considering the materials on record, found that a prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner and his sons and hence, granted an interim order of injunction on 2.4.2012 in the said suit in favour of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner also filed one more suit – O.S.No.214/2012 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Chikmagalur against one Sadashiva and Girish, who were creating problems by interfering with his right of way situated in the backyard belonging to the Panchayath and for the unlawful attempts made to restrain the usage by the petitioner over a period of time. In the said suit also, two applications – I.As.1 and 2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be allowed as per the order dated 21.7.2012 and permanent injunction was granted. The President of the Trust – 4th respondent herein in his individual capacity filed an application for impleading in the said proceedings which came to be rejected.

4. The defendants in O.S.No.214/2012, who had suffered an order of temporary injunction and who could not succeed to corner the petitioner, somehow or the other in respect of his enjoyment of the properties in their own right and also in respect of his easementary rights, appear to have made a request to the Lakya Village Panchayath, who passed the impugned resolution and subsequently Taluk Panchayath has granted approval on 16.8.2012. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.

5. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not filed any objections, but respondent No.4 has filed the objections.

6. The 4th respondent in his statement of objections has contended that the very writ petition filed by the petitioner against the resolution passed by the Grama Panchayath is not maintainable. The resolution passed by the Grama Panchayath was subsequently approved by the Taluk Panchayath and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief before this Court and Civil dispute in respect of property bearing Assessment No.233/2015 filed by the petitioner with regard to easementary right is also pending. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

8. Sri V.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned resolution dated 27.6.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent as per Annexure-A and the consequent approval letter dated 16.8.2012 made by the 2nd respondent-Taluk Panchayath as per Annexure-B is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that the very resolution passed by the Grama Panchayath is contrary to the provisions of Rules 3 and 5 of the Karnataka Gram Panchayath (Acquisition and Transfer of Moveable and Immoveable Properties) Rules 1996. He would also contend that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P. Thimmanaiak and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2009 (4) Kar.L.J. 173 (DB) has held that the condition precedent for initiating proceedings for obtaining of prior sanction, not just post facto sanction, of Taluk Panchayat is mandator