SHANMUKHAPPA FAKIRAPPA BALLOLI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SHANMUKHAPPA FAKIRAPPA BALLOLI
STATE OF MYSORE
Referred Judgements :-
HASSAN SAB HAMIDDIN SAB KALLIMANI V. STATE OF MYSORE
N.SETTI RAJU V. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER,MYSORE
Click here to view full 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
(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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.