SHANMUKHAPPA FAKIRAPPA BALLOLI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE
LAWS(KAR)-1969-9-12
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on September 03,1969

SHANMUKHAPPA FAKIRAPPA BALLOLI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MYSORE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HASSAN SAB HAMIDDIN SAB KALLIMANI V. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
N.SETTI RAJU V. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER,MYSORE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.)The notification (marked Ext.-D) dated 26-1-1967 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum, purporting to be under S.3(2) (b) of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that the Panchayat, Annigeri, has ceased to be a village, has been assailed in this petition.
(2.)Mr. S. G. Bhat, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the impugned notification was invalid on the following grounds.
(i) The delegation of the powers of the Government under S.3 of the Act, to the Commissioner, was invalid; (ii) The impugned notification could not have been made without first declaring that Annigeri Panchayat Town had ceased to be a Panchayat Town; (iii) The Divisional Commissioner could not declare that Annigeri had ceased to be a village without constituting simultaneously the area comprised therein into new village or villages under the Act; and (iv) The exercise of power by the Divisional Commissioner in issuing the impugned notification, was mala fide. Elucidating the first ground, Mr. Bhat argued that by the notification (marked Ext.-E) issued under S.197 of the Act, the power of the Government under S.3 of the Act was delegated to the Commissioner, without specifying to which of the four Divisional Commissioners the power was so delegated and that as the notification stands, it is competent for the Divisional Commissioner of one Division to exercise such delegated power in respect of an area falling within another Division.

(3.)In the present case, it is not disputed that such delegated power has been exercised by the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum, within whose territorial jurisdiction Annigeri village lies. Hence, the contention that the delegated power is capable of being exercised by the Divisional Commissioner of another Division, is only academic. The reference to the Commissioner in the notification, Ext.-E, should, in our opinion, be construed as the Commissioner within whose territorial limits the area of the village in question, lies.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.