JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

In this writ petition, styled as Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the respondent No.4 - The Project Director, District Urban Development Cell, Bellary dated 06.12.2016, marked as Annexure-H and consequential steps taken, to construct the office building of the Town Panchayath Kottur inter alia seeking for a direction to the authorities to preserve the park area [land in question] for park purpose only and not to change the same for any other purpose.

2. The petitioners are claiming to be the residents of Kottur Town Panchayath. It is their contention that the land in Sy.No.765/1 of Kottur Village, Kudligi Taluk is the reserve land and in the revenue records, it is specifically mentioned as park and overhead water tank. This being the position, the local Town Panchayath of Kottur is trying to convert this park area to Panchayath Office Complex.

3. Learned counsel Sri.N.Shankaranarayana Bhat, appearing for the petitioners placing reliance on the Record of Rights [RTC] and Pahani in respect of the land in question for the years 2001-02, 2014-15 and 20l5-16, submitted that the said land is reserved for public purpose and in the relevant column, it is specifically shown as water tank and park. Reference was made to the resolution dated 15.07.2016 at Annexure-D to the writ petition as well as resolution dated 16.09.2016 at Annexure-E to the writ petition and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, District Town Development Section, Bellary whereby administrative approval has been granted to Kottur Town Panchayath for the work of Constructing new building in the very spot where the present old office of the Town Panchayath is located and the grant is allotted for the said project [Annexure-F to the writ petition]. Inviting the attention of this Court to Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ['Act' for short], it was submitted that, the Deputy Commissioner is required to follow the procedure prescribed to modify the order passed earlier. Such procedure not being complied with, the impugned order dated 06.12.2016 at Annexure-H is unsustainable.

4. Learned counsel Sri.M.V.Hiremath, appearing for the respondent No.1 has filed statement of objections, refuting the contentions of the petitioners that the land in question is reserved for the park. In contrast, it was contended that the land in question was purchased by the respondent No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 22.04.1968 for the purpose of construction of the Town Panchayath Office and water tank. The name of the vendor of the respondent No.1 continued in the revenue records from 1968 till 1997-98. Subsequently, the name of the respondent No.1 came to be inserted by the order of the Tahasildar, Kudligi dated 07.01.1998. By virtue of which, the name of the vendor of the respondent No.1 came to be deleted. However, the RTC of the said lands reflected the tank and park for some years. On application filed by the petitioner No.1 seeking correction of the same, the name of the President, Town Panchayath was incorporated from 2001 to 2015-16 in the revenue records, making necessary corrections in accordance with law. The learned counsel has referred to the proceedings of the Tahasildar dated 24.06.2016, to emphasize that the name of the respondent No.1 was substituted by correcting the Pahani Column No.12/2 in the place of Water Tank and park and the consequential order dated 24.04.2016, making necessary correction in the Pahani records. Copies of such documents referred to, are placed on record as Annexures-R1 to R4.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 by filing the statement of objections, has supported the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

6. There was no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2.

7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as aforesaid and perused the material p