S. MUNIBACHAPPA S/O LATE SONNAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocates appearing for the petitioners, respondents and so also the learned Government Advocate.

(2.) THE entire dispute revolves around a pond adjacent to Ittasandra Village of Nandagudi Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, measuring 90' x 90' (approximately 10 guntas of land). It is not in dispute that the pond in question is in existence for long time. It is also not in dispute that sometime back water from this tank was also used for drinking purpose, but off late, the water mainly is used for other human purposes like, feeding the cattle, washing clothes, etc. According to the petitioners' counsel, we are living in a situation where water is becoming dearer day by day, therefore the existing pond should not be closed on the pretext of Grama Panchayat concerned needing the same for constructing the office building on the ground that the said pond is going to breed mosquitoes, and posing hazard to the health of the public. According to the. learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sections 82 and 84 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), are applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the very resolution of the Grama Panchayat to close the pond for the purpose of construction of building is against the provisions of Sections 82 and 84 of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners also in reply brought to our notice that an estimate got prepared by a reputed Engineer points out that a sum of Rs. 5,75,000/ - would be the cost to fill up the said pond and there is enough gomal land available for the purpose of Panchayat to construct the Panchayat office. According to him, the maximum cost of the land would be Rs. 1,00,000/ - per acre. Therefore, causing hardship and inconvenience to the public at large in the said Village by closing the pond should not be encouraged.