CHANNABASAPPA S/O S. SAGREAND ANR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL Nos.200063/2017 & 200088-091/2017 (LB-RES) Between: 1. Channabasappa S/o S.Sagre Age: 37 years, Occ: Agri. R/o Degaon, Tq: Aland Dist: Kalaburagi-585316 2. Shekappa S/o Nagappa Dole Age: 42 years, Occ: Agri. R/o. Degaon, Tq: Aland Dist: Kalaburagi-585316 …Appellants (By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate) And: 1. The State of Karnataka By its Revenue Secretary M.S.Building, Bengaluru-1 2. The Regional Commissioner Office of the Regional Commissioner

2 Kalaburagi-585104 3. The Deputy Commissioner Office of Deputy Commissioner Kalaburagi – 585104 4. Ashok S/o Basvantraya Mulge Age: 41 years, Occ: Legal Practitioner, R/o. Haltadkal Tq: Aland, Dist: Kalaburagi And also residing at Plot No.52/8 NGO Layout, Biddapur Colony Kalaburagi-585103 5. Karnataka State Election Commission By its Under Secretary, Krishi Bhavan Cunningham road, Bengaluru-1 6. Vittal Bujurke S/o Shivjat Bujurke, Age: 34 years Occ: Business, R/o. Hadtadkal Tq: Aland, Dist: Kalaburagi-585316 7. Rajkumar S/o B. Nagunde Sanagunda, Age: 42 years Occ: Agri., R/o. Sanagangunda Tq: Aland, Dist: Kalaburagi-585316 8. Ambaraya s/o Ramanna Melinkere Age: 31 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Kunisangavi, Tq: Aland Dist: Kalaburagi-585316 9. Gunderao S/o Srimanth Totad Age: 37 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Bilgunda, Tq: Aland Dist: Kalaburagi-585316 …Respondents (By Sri K.M.Ghate, AGA for R1 to R3; Sri Amresh S. Roja, Advocate for R4;

3 Sri P.S.Malipatil, Advocate for R5; Sri Basavaraj D.K., Advocate for R6) These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to allow this appeal and to set aside the final order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.03.2017 in writ petition Nos.201924-201928/2015 and to pass any other appropriate orders as may be necessary. These appeals are coming on for Admission, this day, S. SUJATHA J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT These intra Court appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.201924- 201928/2015 (LB-RES) dated 13.03.2017, whereby petitions filed by the appellants herein have been dismissed. 2. The Government of Karnataka by its notification dated 19.01.2015 has proposed to establish 439 Gram Panchayats in the Karnataka, the 42 Gram Panchayats are of Kalaburagi District. The respondent No.3 on the basis of Panchayat Re-organizing Committees decision and analyzing the applications made by the local residents, exercising its power conferred under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act (for short ‘the Act’) was pleased to substitute the Gram

4 Panchayat headquarters from Hal Tadkal to Degaon by including four villages i.e., Hal Tadkal, Wadwanwadi, Naseerwadi and Barkhed villages and accordingly Gazette notification was issued to that effect. Respondent No.2 by exercising the power conferred under Section 4(3) of the Act vide its order dated 10.03.2015 revised the said order and transferred the headquarters from Degaon to Hal Tadkal of Aland Taluk, District Kalaburagi. 3. It is submitted that Hal Tadkal Village is not a Revenue Village in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act, the Regional Commissioner accepting the same, has directed the Deputy Commissioner to declare the said Hal Tadkal Village as the Revenue Village. The order impugned is incongruous in nature and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, writ petitions were filed by the appellants herein, which came to be dismissed. Hence, these writ appeals. 4. Learned counsel Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, appearing for the respondents would submit that the Regional

5 Commissioner/respondent No.2 grossly erred in interfering with the order passed by respondent No.2 in choosing the headquarters of the Gram Panchayat, weightage has to be given to the availability of the facilities and future growth of the place viz., i) Banking facility, ii) Communication facility; iii) Medical facility; iv) Veterinary Dispensary; v) Police Station; vi) Post Office/Telephone exchange; vii) High School; and 8) Market Yard or agricultural Godown and like. 5. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J.R.Raghupathy vs. State of A.P., reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1681, it is submitted that the order of the Regional Commissioner is not a speaking order, as no reasons are assigned by the Authority in arriving at a decision. In the absence of the reasons forthcoming in the order impugned, the learned Single Judge ought to have set- aside the order impugned. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri Shivaji and Others. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.19835-837/2015 and connected matters dated 19.01.2016.

6 6. Learned counsel Sri Amresh S.Roja, appearing for respondent No.4 as well as learned counsel Sri Basavaraj D.R, appearing for respondent No.6 justifying the impugned order would submit that the Regional Commissioner has passed the order on analyzing the facilities namely infrastructure, accessibility etc., to declare Hal Tadkal village as Village Panchayat Headquarters. Reliance is placed on the Government order dated 17.07.1995 issued by the Government of Karnataka whereby Hal Tadkal village has been notified as a Revenue Village. The Regional Commissioner directed the Deputy Commissioner to declare Hal Tadkal Village as the Revenue Village, sans noticing the said Government order dated 17.07.1995 Hal Tadkal Village having been declared as Revenue Village, no further direction is necessary to declare the said village as the Revenue Village. However, the said direction would not render the order impugned as incongruous and as such illegal. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the State of U.P and others vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1512.

7 7. Section 4(3) of the Act provides that “the Commissioner may either on an application made within thirty days from the date of the notification by any person aggrieved by such notification or su moto, and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant or the Grama Panchayat concerned revise the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and may also, if he considers necessary, modify it as provided in the third proviso to sub-section (1). Every order so passed revising or modifying the order of the Deputy Commissioner shall be published in the Official Gazette.” 8. As could be seen from Annexure-D, respondent Nos.6 to 9 along with others had invoked the provisions of Section 4(3) of the Act. The Regional Commissioner has passed a cryptic order setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and declared the village Hal Tadkal as the Gram Panchayat Headquarters. Though the applications made by the parties to the proceedings has been recorded elaborately while arriving at a decision no reasons are assigned. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

8 Court in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore, reported in (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 329, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that recording of reasons is a part of fair procedure; reasons are harbinger between the mind of maker of the decision in the controversy and the decision or conclusion arrived at. It is stated that they substitute subjectivity with objectivity. In M/s Woolcombers of India Ltd., vs. Woolcombers Workers Union and another, reported (1974) 3 Supreme Court Cases 318, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus ;- “5………………. The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion…………” 9. In State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004 (5) SCC 568) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, the reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the

9 same it becomes lifeless. It was mandatory for the Regional Commissioner to assign reasons to arrive at a conclusion to come to a different decision than what was recorded by the Deputy Commissioner. Unless the authority makes findings on disputes as to fact, explains the exercise of discretion by indicating the considerations that it has taken into account and relevant weightage assigned to each one of them and give its answers, to any questions of law, there can be no assurance that the authority discharged its obligations to base its decision upon the material presented at the hearing rather than on extraneous considerations. 10. In the light of these settled principles of law in the matter of assigning reasons by a quasi-judicial Authority and applying the same to the order impugned, there is no doubt that the same is not a speaking order except arriving at a conclusion, violating the principles of natural justice. Indeed it is expected that quasi-judicial authority passes a speaking order so that the mind of the authority can be known especially how the issues in dispute at the hearing has been resolved. Any such order contrary to this settled position of law would

10 finally result in denying the justice to the parties. If the order is lacking in assigning the reasons, it goes to the root of the matter and the same requires to be viewed seriously in the dispensation of justice. This aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. 11. Hence, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds it appropriate to dispose of these writ appeals setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remitting the matter to the Regional Commissioner for fresh consideration without dwelling on the merits or demerits of the case. Hence, the following : ORDER Writ appeals are allowed in part. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.201924-201928/2015 dated 13.03.2017 is set aside and the matter is remitted for consideration afresh by the Regional Commissioner-respondent No.2 to pass an appropriate speaking order in accordance with law after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the

11 concerned by taking into consideration all the relevant Government notifications and pass orders expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be adjudicated before respondent No.2 – Regional Commissioner. Since the parties are represented by their respective learned counsel, they are directed to be present before respondent No.2 – Regional Commissioner on 09.10.2018 at 3.00 p.m. without further notice. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Srt/sn