IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

W.P.No.1677/2008 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

H.K.GURUBASAVARAJA S/O BASAVARAJA

AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

3^RD WARD, HUVINAHADAGALI, BALLERY DISTRICT.

.. PETITIONER

(BY SRI.M.B.KANAVI, ADV.)

AND:

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

BELLARY DISTRICT,

MINI VIDHANASOUDA, BELLARY.

2.

THE CHIEF OFFICER,

TOWN PANCHAYAT, HUVINAHADAGALI,

BELLARY DISTRICT.

.. RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1,

SRI.M.R.PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

BY QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.1 BEARING

No.K/M/APPEAL/09/2006-07

DATED

10.12.2007

PRODUCED

AT

ANNEXURE-H.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2

ORDER

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2007

passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-H filed this writ

petition.

2.

Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that,

petitioner claims ownership over the petition property bearing

old No.139G/1 and new No.225 measuring 66 x 16.5 situated in

3^rd Ward, Hovinahadagali within the limits of Gram Panchayat.

The petitioner obtained the construction permission from the

competent authority in the year 2005. That one Devanna

started interfering with the construction of the building without

any right, title and interest over the petition property. It is

stated that petition property standing in the name of the

petitioner in the revenue records ever since from the time of his

ancestors. The petitioner has paid tax of the petition property.

The petitioner applied for issuance construction permission. The

competent authority after due enquiry issued a construction

permission to the petitioner to construct the building in the

petition property. The said Devanna and others have disputed

3

the boundaries of the petition property without any right, title

and interest. The said Devanna filed W.P.No.12143/2005.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the said Devanna

approached the Deputy Commissioner with a prayer to cancel

the building licence issued in favour of the petitioner. The

petitioner appeared and filed detailed objection before the

Deputy Commissioner and also highlighting the facts and

informed about the pendency of the civil suit and also pendency

of the writ petition filed by Devanna. The Deputy Commissioner

without considering the objections filed by the petitioner has

passed the impugned order. The petitioner aggrieved by the

order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, filed this writ

petition.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned High Court Government Pleader.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned

order as per Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act,

1964 (hereinafter referred to as 8the Act9 for short). The

4

impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is without

jurisdiction and prays to allow the writ petition.

5.

Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 fairly

concede that, as per Section 322 of the Act, the Deputy

Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

6.

Perused the records and also considered the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.

In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is necessary to examine

Section 306 of the Act, which reads as under:

<306.

Deputy

Commissioner9s

power

of

suspending

execution of orders, etc. of municipal councils.4(1) If, in

the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner, the execution of any

order or resolution of a town municipal council, or the doing of

anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on

behalf of a town municipal council, is un