IN TE HIG C0UT CF KTAKA AT 3A:rLCPE Dated this the 8th da of June 1998 3 a f a re TdE WON’ 31E M • JUSTICE C DASdEKA RATh -i *1. i.No:15305/1997 BETWEEN: 1, Sri,Denial J’Souza, s/o 3asthu Osouza, age3 abt 40 years, r/o Matasagara village, Caaaba Hli, akleshpur taluk. 2. srnt.Magdline D’Scuza, w/O. late Bastiu D’Souza, aged about 65 years, r/ Watasagara village, Kasaba hli, Sakleshpur taluk, ... Petitioners; (By Sri. S.7.Narayana Murthy AND: 1. The State of <arnataka, rep. by its Secretary to Gernment, Rural Development and Panchayst Raj, Department, N.5. Buildings, Dr .Ambedkar Veedhi, 3an ore—560 001. 2 • The Assistant ‘ommissioner, Sakleshpur sb—division, Sakleshpur. 3. ‘Ihe Jecretary, Mandal Panchayat, Malali Gram Panchayat, Kasaba hobli, Sakleshur, taluk. 4. 3mt.RatnaLrirw, w/o .-.angcppa, aged about 60 years, Kollahalli, Matasagara Post, Kasaba hooli, Sakieshpur taluk. ... Responcnts; Sr: K.Nacaraja, WCGP for RI andR3; Qri. .N.Hatti, for —4; —2— Writ petition is filed under Arts,226 and 227 of the Constitution oraying to iuash the ordrdated ll—2—197 (Annexure—G) asaed ny the 2nd resondent, This petition caning on for preliminary hearing in B group this days the Court made the following: ORDER On the application filed ny the petitioner for grant of site, the then Manl Panchayet nas granted a site measuring 40’ x 60’ in his favour. rhe location of the site is in dispute, The contention of the 4th respon dent is that the said site is not in Gramathana out it is in survey No.5 of Matasagara vil)ge. 2) The case of the petitioner is that the site in question is a gramathana site and not in the survey SN* number. It is submitted that the 4th respondent has alreacr filed a dLvil suit for injunction as against the petitioner in the Court of tte Munsiff Sakleipur and it is pending consideration, 3) T’he case of the petitioner as stated earlier is that the site is a gramathana and it was granted in his favour in te year 1990, Thereafter, the petitiOrer filed an appliion for grant of licence to constrit the building in the said site. On tnat application the Gram Panchayat has granted the licence, This licence was challenged by the 4th responnt in apoea before —3— the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Oomrnis also sioner set aside not only the licence but/grant made by the Gram Panchayath in favour of the peti— tiorEr. This order is challenged in this tition 4) There is no reason for the Assistant Commissioner to set aside the grantitself. Therefore, to the extent of setting aside the grant is cncerned, te Assistant Commissioner was not right. Co far as the grant of licence is concerned, I feel it just and necessary to restrain both the petitioner and respondent—4 to put up any construction till the matter is disposed of One way or the other in tne Civil Court which is pending consideration before the Muns, Sakleshpur. Further, the grant of Hakku patra by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner is subject to the decision that may be rendered by tI Civil Dourt. 5) Accorjingly, qrit petition is allowed in part, The impugned order passed by the Assistant Commis sioner setting aside the grant made in favour of t igt octitioner is quashed. The writ petition insofar C -L’44( as it rels to the grant of licence is dismissed. However, t parties are at liberty to move the Pan— chayat for appropriate relief after the dissai of the civil suit. Sd/rn T )GE