Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 527 (KAR)

Kashinath v. State of Karnataka

2019-02-27

B.VEERAPPA, P.G.M.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. 1. This intra-Court appeal is filed against the order dated 9-3-2018 made in W.P. No. 202411/2017 on the file of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Regional Commissioner and declaring Ujani Village as headquarter of the grama panchayat consisting of Ujani, Medpalli, Gandhinagar and Gudapalli villages. The present respondents 4 to 6 filed writ petition in W.P. No. 202411/2017 for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 24-4-2017 passed by the 2nd respondent-Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi made in No. (vide Annexure-J to the writ petition). I. Facts of the case: 2. It is the case of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge that the petitioners are permanent residents of Ujani village, Aurad taluk of Bidar district. The State Government under notification dated 9-1-2015 has given approval for formation of 439 grama panchayats within the State of Karnataka. The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar district on 19-1-2015 has published a draft notification showing Ujani as newly constituted grama panchayat with Ujani as the headquarter for the group of four villages namely, Ujani, Medapalli, Sunkanalli and Gudapalli coming within the jurisdiction of newly constituted grama panchayat of Ujani village. Ujani village has got the facilities and amenities which makes it more convenient, feasible, practicable and eligible for being declared as the headquarter of the newly constituted grama panchayat. It is further contended that after the draft notification, certain objections were received by one Nagashetty and others of Gudapalli village to make Gudapalli village as headquarter instead of Ujani. So also one Shivaji and others of Gandhinagar village sought to include their village in the proposed new grama panchayat with Ujani as headquarter by removing the said village from Chikalli(J) grama panchayat. So also one Arifa Begum President of grama panchayat Chikkali(J) sought to remove Gandhinagar from that panchayat and to include Sunkanalli village in Chikkali (J) grama panchayat. 3. It is further contented that a committee headed by Tahsildar and CEO taluk panchayat, as Secretary and other members considered the said objections and gave their opinion to retain Ujani as headquarter of grama panchayat and to include Ghandhinagar in the proposed Ujani grama panchayat by removing the same from Chikkali (J) grama panchayat and also to delete Sunkanal village from the proposed Ujani grama panchayat. The Deputy Commissioner after considering the said report, issued final notification dated 4-2-2015 retaining Ujani as headquarter of grama panchayat and included Gandhinagar village in the said grama panchayat and has removed the Sunkanalli village from the said Grama Panchayat and included the same in Chikkali(J) grama panchayat. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the distance from village Ujani to Gandhinagar is 1 km, village Ujani to Medapalli is 1 km, from Ujani to Gudapalli is 4 kms. Village Ujani is centrally located among the four villages. Whereas, Gudapalli is around more than 1 km from Gandhinagar and 4 km from Ujani and is not a convenient place for the residents of the other three villages. Since several decades, the villagers of the three villages never had any occasion to visit Gudapalli village for their political, social or other requirements, whereas the people of Gudapalli, Medapalli, Gandhinagar villages and other surrounding villages have always been conveniently coming to Ujani to cater to their political and other requirements. 5. It is further case of the petitioners that respondents 4 and 5 have filed a revision under Section 4(3) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short the 'Act'), before the 2nd respondent-Regional Commissioner. The 2nd respondent even without hearing the members of the affected grama panchayat including the petitioners herein and without assigning any cogent reasons, has passed an order dated 10-3-2015 declaring Gudapalli village as the headquarter of the newly constituted grama panchayat as per Annexure-G to the writ petition. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 202590/2015 (Shivaji and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2016 (3) Kar. L.J. 44). This Court after hearing both the parties by the order dated 16-4-2015, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the Regional Commissioner dated 10-3-2015 and remanded the matter to the Regional Commissioner for a fresh disposal in accordance with law and also directed the Regional Commissioner to provide an opportunity to the petitioners and others concerned and also with reference to the provisions of Section 4(3) of the Act, and thereafter to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Until such an order is passed, no further proceedings shall be initiated or continued and directed the petitioners to appear before the Regional Commissioner on 22-4-2015 while directing the Regional Commissioner to pass orders in accordance with law. 7. After remand, the matter from this Court, the 2nd respondent-Regional Commissioner after hearing both the parties by the order dated 2-5-2015 declared Gudapalli village as headquarter to grama panchayat by exercising powers under Section 4(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Regional Commissioner, respondents 4 to 6 herein filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. Nos. 19835-837/2015 and connected matters (Shivaji and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2016 (3) Kar. L.J. 44 : 2016 (3) AKR 741 : ILR 2016 Kar. 985). The learned Single Judge of this Court considering the entire material on record by the order dated 19-1-2016 allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners and others. The impugned order passed by the Regional Commissioner was quashed and remanded the matter to Regional Commissioner for consideration afresh after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the observations supra, in any event by 27-1-2016. Parties since represented by learned Counsel are directed to be present before the Regional Commissioner. After remand for the second time, the Regional Commissioner by the impugned order dated 24-4-2017 again declared Gudapalli as headquarter by exercising power under Section 4(3) of the Act. Hence, the writ petition came to be filed by the respondents 4 to 6. II. Statement of objections filed in writ petition: 8. The present appellants who are the respondents before the learned Single Judge have filed their statement of objections along with Annexures-R1 to R47 and denied the averments made in writ petitions and contended that the order passed by the Regional Commissioner was just and proper taking into consideration the entire surrounding circumstances Gudapalli village is suitable for headquarter for all the four villages. It is further contended that when compared to Ujani village, the Deputy Commissioner fixed the headquarter by specifying the same, the population is approximately 1536 and the voters are 1037 comparatively less. Taking into consideration the population, automatically the headquarter should go to Gudapalli. It is further contended that when compared to Ujani village, the Deputy Commissioner fixed the headquarter by specifying the same, the population is approximately 1536 and the voters are 1037 comparatively less. Taking into consideration the population, automatically the headquarter should go to Gudapalli. Contrary to the same, the Deputy Commissioner without examining the factual aspects of the matter declared Ujani village as headquarter which is at the end of the eastern side of the panchayat area and it is not centrally located. When such being the case, the other side of the village i.e. Gudapalli which has got more population having infrastructure of library, school with garden, two community hall, roads, CRC centers, ANM headquarter KSRTC bus stand and the majority of the shops are located in Gudapalli, which facilities are very convenient for the formers to buy products like Manure for agricultural purpose which is readily available at Gudapalli. Apart from that, the Gudapalli having a dairy of milk producers co-operative society, water facility and the place of Gudapalli is connected by road to all Thandas in and around Gudapalli and other panchayat areas. In support of these contentions, they relied upon various documents issued by the various authorities produced along with statement of objections. Therefore, sought for dismissal of writ petition. III. Order passed by the learned Single Judge: 9. The learned Single Judge considering the entire material on record and also considering the memo dated 7-3-2018, filed by the State Government along with documents, by the impugned order dated 9-3-2018, allowed the writ petition and declared Ujani village as headquarter of grama panchayat and quashed the order passed by the Regional Commissioner dated 24-4-2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. IV. Arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties: 10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 11. Sri A. Nagarajappa, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition thereby declaring Ujani village as headquarter of the grama panchayat is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and liable to be interfered. 11. Sri A. Nagarajappa, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition thereby declaring Ujani village as headquarter of the grama panchayat is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and liable to be interfered. He would further contend that learned Single Judge cannot exercise the power of authorities fixing the headquarter and it is not duty of the Court to fix the headquarter, it is for the authorities based on the amenities, facilities available to decide under the provisions of the Act and Court cannot exercise the power of the authorities. On that ground also he sought to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He further contended that though as many as documents at Annexures-R1 to R47 issued by the Competent Authorities during the course of their official duty produced before the learned Single Judge and in the entire judgment there is no reference to any of the documents, thereby learned Single Judge proceeded to set aside the order passed by the Regional Commissioner ignoring the materials on record. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained. 12. He further contended that learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Regional Commissioner. The 2nd respondent has declared Gudapalli Village as headquarter considering the entire materials on record and taking into consideration the power under Section 4(3) of the Act, there is no error or violation of any law. He further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the order passed by the Regional Commissioner dated 24-4-2017 is without application of mind and in fact even without there being any appeal by the parties. Therefore, the same is required to be quashed and the order of the Deputy Commissioner identifying Ujani village as headquarter to grama panchayat for four villages appeared to be just and proper. He submits that the learned Single Judge failed to notice that the impugned order passed by the Regional Commissioner dated 24-4-2017 in view of the remand order passed by the learned Single Judge by this Court dated 19-1-2016 made in W.P. Nos. 19835-837/2015 and connected matters. The said order has not been considered, thereby the learned Single Judge erroneously allowed the writ petition. 13. 19835-837/2015 and connected matters. The said order has not been considered, thereby the learned Single Judge erroneously allowed the writ petition. 13. He further contended that in view of the Act, came into force, 73rd Amendment, the jurisdictional authorities namely, Deputy Commissioner, Regional Commissioner are Competent Authorities to fix the headquarter and Courts sitting under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot declare the particular village as headquarter. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge interfering with the order of the Regional Commissioner is contrary to the material on record and therefore, liable to be set aside. 14. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied upon the following the judgments: (1) in the case of Amalpur Gram Panchayat, Bidar vs. State of Karnataka and Others 2000 (1) Kar. L.J. Sh. N. 20 (DB), ILR 1997 Kar 2078 (DB); (2) in the case of Surendra Bahu vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 1996 (3) Kar. L.J. 168 (DB), ILR 1996 Kar. 1797 (DB). Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal. 15. Per contra, Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondents-original petitioners sought to justify the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and contended with vehemence that in pursuance of the general and special orders passed by the State Government exercising powers under Section 4(1) of the Act, Ujani village was declared as headquarter to all the group of villages. Once the Government exercises the said powers, the Regional Commissioner cannot interfere with the order passed by the State Government. Therefore, learned Single Judge is justified in reversing the orders passed by the 2nd respondent by allowing the writ petition. 16. He further contended that the learned Single Judge in paras 8 and 9 of the writ petition in categorical terms based on the documents along with memo dated 7-3-2018 produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate, would indicate that centrally situated place is Ujani village and has upper hand as against Gudapalli village with reference to the various facilities namely, Ujani village is adjacent to State Highway-122, which is Bidar-Murki-Handarki road and the said village is about 1.85 km away from Medpalli Village; 4.50 km away from Gudapalli Village and 2.25 km away from Gandhinagar village. When the same is compared to distance from each of the villages Gudapalli it is seen that Gudapalli village is 4.5 km away from Ujani village; 2.65 km away from Medpalli and 4.30 km away from Gandhinagar. Therefore, when the distance with which each of the villages are located to the two competent villages namely Gudapalli and Ujani, Ujani village appears to be ideally situated to be identified as headquarter. Therefore, he submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is based on the records produced by the Government Advocate along with memo, cannot be interfered by this Court. 17. He further contended that Ujani village has a Post Office, a High School, an Anganwadi Centre, a Prathamika Krishi Pattina Sahakari Co-operative Bank, Public Bus Stand, Public Library, Linemen quarters, Village Accountant's Office located in the said village against the facilities available in Gudapalli village, Ujani village has upper hand to be declared as the headquarter of grama panchayat. He further contended that Ujani village was the headquarter from 1956-86. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of power under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. 18. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel has relied upon the following judgments: (1) in the case of J.R. Raghupathy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1998 SC 1681 ; (2) in the case of B.N. Shankarappa vs. Uthanur Srinivas and Others, 1992(1) SCR 286 , AIR 1992 SC 836 . Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ appeal. 19. Sri K.M. Ghate, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the order passed by the Regional Commissioner and contended the suitable place is Gudapalli village as headquarter not Ujani village. When the matter was heard on 18-2-2019, at length, this Court orally directed learned Additional Government Advocate to get the latest report from both the Deputy Commissioner and Regional Commissioner to know which is best village suitable for headquarter among the group of four villages in view of the vehement arguments advanced by both the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis to know the real truth. 20. Accordingly, today learned Additional Government Advocate has filed report of the Additional Regional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner submitted to the Regional Commissioner dated 21-2-2019. The same is placed on record. V. The point for determination: 21. 20. Accordingly, today learned Additional Government Advocate has filed report of the Additional Regional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner submitted to the Regional Commissioner dated 21-2-2019. The same is placed on record. V. The point for determination: 21. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is: "Whether the appellants have made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of power under Section 4 of the High Court Act?" VI. Consideration: 22. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire materials on record including the original papers in the writ petition, which were brought before the Court, carefully. 23. The dispute between the appellants and the respondents is with regard to declaration of headquarter of grama panchayat under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power under Section 4(1) of the Act has issued draft notification on 19-1-2015 as per Annexure-A declaring 'Ujani village' as the newly constituted grama panchayat with Ujani village as the headquarter for the group of four villages consisting of: 1. Ujani 2. Medapalli 3. Sunkanalli 4. Gudapalli (group of villages) Subsequently, the final notification came to be issued on 4-2-2015 as per Annexure-F consists of.- 1. Ujani 2. Medapalli 3. Gandhinagar 4. Gudapalli and Ujani village declared as headquarter of grama panchayat consists of said group of villages. 24. Aggrieved by the said declaration made by the Deputy Commissioner exercising powers under Section 4(1) of the Act, the present appellants who are the respondents 4 and 5 before the learned Single Judge filed appeal under the provisions of Section 4(3) of the Act before the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi Division, Kalaburagi. The Regional Commissioner impleading only the Deputy Commissioner as party by the order dated 10-3-2015 set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and allowed the appeal filed under Section 4(3) of the Act and declared Gudapalli village as headquarter to group of the villages stated supra. 25. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the 2nd respondent-Regional Commissioner, the present respondents 4 to 6 filed Writ Petition No. 202590/2015 before this Court. 25. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the 2nd respondent-Regional Commissioner, the present respondents 4 to 6 filed Writ Petition No. 202590/2015 before this Court. This Court allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondents 4 to 6 mainly on the ground that the 2nd respondent-Regional Commissioner has not at all provided any opportunity before passing impugned order and remanded the matter to Regional Commissioner who shall issue notice to all the concerned persons and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 26. The material on record clearly depicts that after remand, the second respondent-Regional Commissioner by an order dated 22-4-2015 again for the second time allowed the appeal under Section 4(3) of the Act and declared Gudapalli village as headquarter of the Grama Panchayat. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Regional Commissioner, the present respondents 4 to 6 filed Writ Petition Nos. 19835-837/2015. The learned Single Judge by the order dated 19-1-2016 specifically recorded finding at paras 12, 19 and 20, which reads as under: "12. What is relevant for consideration in these petitions is the fact that the Deputy Commissioner having published in the official gazette the proposal to declare Ujani as the headquarter for the Ujani Grama Panchayat, exercising jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the KPR Act, followed by the notification dated 4-2-2015 Annexure-C4 declaring Ujani as the headquarter, the Regional Commissioner revised and modified the said order in exercise of appeal jurisdiction under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the KPR Act. In that view of the matter, the Regional Commissioner, it is needless to State, was required to assign reasons, findings and conclusions to come to a different decision than what was recorded by the Deputy Commissioner. .......... 19. Having given my anxious consideration to the aforesaid settled principles of law in the matter of assigning reasons and applying the same to the order impugned, suffice it to notice that it is not a speaking order since it does not contain reasons and findings except conclusion tantamounting to denial of justice to the petitioners. 20. Without dwelling into the merits or demerits of the claims of the writ petitioners and that of the contesting respondents, the order impugned deserves interference for not assigning reasons." and consequently allowed the writ petitions. 20. Without dwelling into the merits or demerits of the claims of the writ petitioners and that of the contesting respondents, the order impugned deserves interference for not assigning reasons." and consequently allowed the writ petitions. The impugned order made therein was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration to the Regional Commissioner after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the concerned and pass orders strictly in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Regional Commissioner by the impugned order dated 24-4-2017 again declared Gudapalli village as headquarter of the Grama Panchayat. 27. The material on record clearly depicts that during the pendency of the proceedings, the learned Single Judge directed learned Additional Government Advocate to produce the records. Accordingly, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State produced memo dated 7-3-2018 along with records. Based on the records produced, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that the order passed by the Regional Commissioner is contrary to the material on record and Ujani village as headquarter appears to be reasonable choice. Accordingly, he set aside the order passed by the Regional Commissioner and observed that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner identifying Ujani village as headquarter of Grama Panchayat considering all four villages requires to be confirmed. 28. In view of the controversy between the parties with regard to declaration of headquarter considering the group of four villages stated supra, it is profitable to consider the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 which reads as under: "4. 28. In view of the controversy between the parties with regard to declaration of headquarter considering the group of four villages stated supra, it is profitable to consider the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 which reads as under: "4. Declaration of Panchayat area and establishment of Grama Panchayats.-(1) Subject to the general or special orders of the Government, the Deputy Commissioner, if, in his opinion, it is expedient to declare any area comprising a village or group of villages having a population of not less than five thousand and not more than seven thousand to be a Panchayat area, may, after pervious publication, declare such area as a panchayat area for the purposes of this Act and also specify its headquarter: Provided that the Government may order that an area with a population of not less than two thousand five hundred may be so declared as a Panchayat area in such areas of the districts of Belgum, Chickmagalur, Dakshina Kannada, Dharwar, Hassan, Kodagu, Shimoga, Udupi, Haveri and Uttara Kannada as may be specified by the Government: Provided further that irrespective of population, wherever it is found necessary, the Government, as a special case, may order that an area within a radius of five kilometers (diameter of ten kilometers) from the centre of a village may be so declared as a Panchayat area in such areas of the districts of Belgaum, Chickmagalur, Dakshina Kannada, Dharwar, Hassan, Kodagu, Shimoga, Udupi, Haveri and Uttara Kannada as may be specified by the Government: Provided also that the Deputy Commissioner may, with the previous permission of the Government declare any area comprising a village or group of villages having a population of either less than five thousand or more than seven thousand to be a Panchayat area. (2) Subject to the general or special orders of the Government and the provisions of this Act, the Deputy Commissioner may, at the request of the Grama Panchayat concerned, or otherwise, and after previous publication of the proposal by notification, at any time.- (a) increase the area of any Panchayat area by including within such Panchayat area any village or group of villages; (b) diminish the area of any Panchayat area by excluding from such Panchayat area any village or group of villages; (c) alter the headquarter of any Panchayat area; (d) alter the name of any panchayat area; or (e) declare that any area shall cease to be a Panchayat area. (3) 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 suo motu 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. (4) In every Panchayat area declared as such under this section, there shall be established a Grama Panchayat." 29. A careful reading of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, would clearly indicate that subject to the general or special orders of the Government, the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 4(1) of the Act can declare a Panchayat area as established Grama Panchayat after publication being made and the Deputy Commissioner may also at the request of Grama Panchayat concerned, or otherwise, and after previous publication of the proposal by notification, at any time, increase the area of any Panchayat area or diminish the area of any Panchayat area, alter the name of any Panchayat area, declare that any an area shall cease to be a Panchayat area. If any power is exercised under these two parts that would be subject-matter of revision under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. If any power is exercised under these two parts that would be subject-matter of revision under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. The Regional Commissioner may either on the application made within 30 days from the date of the notification by any person aggrieved by such notification, or suo motu, and after giving 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) of Section 4 of the Act 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. In every Panchayat area declared as such under this section, there shall be established a Grama Panchayat. 30. Taking into consideration the aforesaid provisions of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner issued draft notification at the inception inclusion of four villages namely, Gudapalli, Medpalli, Ujani and Sankanalli declaring Ujani as headquarter to the said villages. After receipt of the objections, by final notification dated 4-2-2015 came to be issued incorporating new village 'Gandhinagar' in the place of Sankanalli Village. In both the draft notification as well as final notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner, except declaring 'Ujani' village as headquarter, he has not assigned any reasons The Regional Commissioner, on the application filed under Section 4(3) of the Act proceeded to declare 'Gudapalli' village as headquarter even without issuing notice to the present respondents 4 to 6. That is how this Court on two occasions set aside the order passed by the Regional Commissioner, mainly on the ground that no opportunity was given to all the concerned persons including respondents 4 to 6. The fact remains the Regional Commissioner, after remand, consistently on three occasions recorded a finding that Gudapalli village is suitable place for headquarter to all the group of villages. 31. The fact remains the Regional Commissioner, after remand, consistently on three occasions recorded a finding that Gudapalli village is suitable place for headquarter to all the group of villages. 31. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the order passed by the Regional Commissioner at para 8 held that on going through the records it is seen that the aforesaid four villages namely Ujani, Medpalli, Gudapalli and Gandhinagar are situated within the vicinity of 5 kms and relied upon the memo dated 7-3-2018 along with documents produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate and came to the conclusion that 'Ujani' village has upper hand against 'Gudapalli' with reference to various facilities. 32. The learned Single Judge further recorded a finding that the impugned order passed by the Regional Commissioner dated 24-4-2015 is without application of mind and even without there being any appeal by the parties and also wrongly showing the beneficiaries of the order of the Deputy Commissioner as appellant in the impugned order. Therefore, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner identifying Ujani village as headquarter of four villages are confirmed. On two occasions this Court while setting aside the order passed by the Regional Commissioner on the ground that no opportunity was given and in view of the remand order passed by this Court, on the third occasion, the Regional Commissioner proceeded to consider the entire material on record and recorded finding of fact as under: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 33. Learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submits that when the State Government exercising power under Section 4 of the Act declared 'Ujani' village as headquarter of the Grama Panchayat, the Regional Commissioner cannot interfere with the decision taken by the State Government. A careful perusal of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act clearly indicates, on the basis of general or special orders passed by the State Government authorising the Deputy Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner can proceed to declare the headquarter to the group of villages and the State Government alone cannot declare the headquarter. If the argument of learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 is accepted, then provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 of the Act become redundant. That is not the intention of Legislature while enacting the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 cannot be accepted. 34. If the argument of learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 is accepted, then provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 of the Act become redundant. That is not the intention of Legislature while enacting the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 cannot be accepted. 34. The learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 further tried to persuade this Court that based on the documents relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner; the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. In order to verify the veracity of the said statement, we secured the original records of the writ petition and verified the memo dated 7-3-2018 along with documents produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate along with letter dated 3-3-2018 by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, Aurad-B to the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi Division, Kalaburagi. Based on the aforesaid documents produced by the Tahsildar, the learned Single Judge proceeded to consider that 'Ujani' village appears to be ideal village to be identified as headquarter. Distance wise the farthest village to the headquarter is Gudapalli. If Gudapalli is required to be taken as headquarter it is 4.5 km away from Ujani and 4.3 km away from Gandhinagar and 2.65 km away from Medpalli. If from the points of distance it is seen the decision of the Deputy Commissioner taking Ujani village as headquarter appears to be reasonable choice. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition setting aside the order passed by the Regional Commissioner. 35. To declare the headquarter, the Deputy Commissioner has to take into consideration all the facilities available having regard to population one of the aspects under Section 4(1) of the Act and basic facilities that is population, road, distance, basic facilities, infrastructure, centre place to all the villages. The Regional Commissioner considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that 'Gudapalli' village is the suitable village/headquarter to all the group of villages. VII. Report submitted by the Additional Regional Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner: 36. In view of the controversy between the parties and in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge relied upon the memo dated 7-3-2018 produced along with records by the Tahsildar, we thought it fit to get the latest information about the best village suitability of the headquarter of the group of villages. In view of the controversy between the parties and in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge relied upon the memo dated 7-3-2018 produced along with records by the Tahsildar, we thought it fit to get the latest information about the best village suitability of the headquarter of the group of villages. Accordingly, by an oral order dated 18-2-2019 directed learned Additional Government Advocate to get the report from the Deputy Commissioner and the Regional Commissioner after visiting the spot and submit a report. The learned Additional Government Advocate produced the report submitted by the Additional Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi Division, Kalaburagi and letter of the Deputy Commissioner to the Regional Commissioner dated 21-2-2019 along with annexures and mahazar (details) with regard to facilities available "wherein it is opined that in all aspects and for administrative reasons 'Gudapalli' village is the suitable village to declare as headquarter of all the group of four villages consisting of Grama Panchayat". The same is extracted hereunder: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 37. Insofar as the contention of learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 that the Regional Commissioner cannot decide the headquarter, when the Deputy Commissioner based on the general direction issued by the State Government fixed the headquarter, the power of Regional Commissioner is very limited under Section 4(3) of the Act cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Legislature while making the provisions of establishing panchayat has provided procedure therefore as well limitations thereto, to the effect that subject to the conditions of the special order or the general order of the Government, the Deputy Commissioner is competent to declare an area comprising of village or group of villages having a population of not less than five thousand and not more than seven thousand to be a panchayat area and can also specify its headquarter. Sub-section (2) further provides that Deputy Commissioner may at the request of the Grama Panchayat, but subject to the general or special order of the Government, either on the request made by the Grama Panchayat concerned or otherwise with the previous publication of the proposal by notification, increase the area of any panchayat area or diminish the same. He can also alter headquarter of any panchayat area or he can declare that any panchayat area shall cease to be panchayat area. He can also alter headquarter of any panchayat area or he can declare that any panchayat area shall cease to be panchayat area. Sub-section (3) makes a provision for the revision of the order of the Deputy Commissioner either suo motu or by revision petition moved within 30 days from the date of notification by any person aggrieved by such notification. The scope of revision has not been specified and therefore the power of the Commissioner with the appeals is equivalent to that of the original authority, subject to the conditions the original authority exercise its jurisdiction. It is open to the Commissioner to either refuse or alter the notification, he can also modify it or he can reject the revision and affirm the order/notification passed by the Deputy Commissioner. His powers are as wide as the original Authority. One thing is clear that the legislation has provided that if any person is aggrieved by the notification issued either under sub-sections (1) and (3) either declaring an area to be an area within a panchayat or excluding it from panchayat area, for declaring headquarter of the panchayat at a specified place and one feeling aggrieved thereby can file the revision against the same as well. 38. In view of the above, the Regional Commissioner considering the entire material on record was of the opinion that 'Gudapalli' village is the suitable place for headquarter of all the group of four villages. Therefore, it is not for the Court to declare the manner in which the same should be done and it is for the authorities of the Government to decide in what manner the panchayat areas and the constituencies in each panchayat area should be delimited. 39. Our view is fortified by the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amalpur Gram Panchayat vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR 1997 Kar. 2078 (DB), wherein this Court while considering the provisions of Article 243-Q of Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992, provisions of Sections 3 and 9 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 at paras 7, 12 and 13 held as under: "7. It is row contended that before the life style of any these villagers is altered it is necessary to hear the objections and decide the same. It is row contended that before the life style of any these villagers is altered it is necessary to hear the objections and decide the same. Unless hearing takes place it will not be permissible to include these areas in the Municipal Council. In this context reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and Others, AIR 1995 SC 1512 . In that decision it is stated that the village is a habitat, and the village for the purpose of the Panchayat can be specified only in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants of the village cannot be accepted. In a developing country where population is growing fast there is an urgent need to evolve and integrate the society. The Supreme Court took note of the various factors arising thereto and made it plain that it is for the Government to decide in what manner the Panchayat areas and the constituencies in each Panchayat area should be delimited. It is not for the Court to declare the manner in which the same should be done. However, while considering the question whether there was any lacuna in the steps taken up the Government to finalise the Panchayat areas, it was found that it was obligatory on the State Government to hear the objections before the Panchayat areas were finalised. It was stated therein that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Visakhapatnam Municipality vs. Kandregula Nukaraju and Others, AIR 1975 SC 2172 ; Baldev Singh and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1239 and Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija vs. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1990 SC 261 require that reasonable opportunity for raising objections and hearing ought to be given in such matters since the change in areas of local bodies results in civil consequences. It was not disputed that action of bringing more than one village under one Grama Panchayat does involve civil consequences. Even a post-decisional hearing could be given. It was not disputed that action of bringing more than one village under one Grama Panchayat does involve civil consequences. Even a post-decisional hearing could be given. In Tulsipur Sugar Company Limited vs. The Notified Area Committee Tulsipur, AIR 1980 SC 882 and Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija and Others vs. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and Others, the nature of power exercised in forming a Municipality has been specifically considered and the view taken is that in formation of a Municipality or inclusion or exclusion of areas thereunder is exercise of a legislative power and it is neither executive nor administrative nor quasi-judicial and when legislative action is taken the concept of hearing does not arise at all; obviously, the attention of the Supreme Court was not drawn to this fact in the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and Others. It proceeded on a concession and not on any argument on the question. Therefore, the petitioners cannot place any reliance on the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and Others. Thus, there is no requirement under the provisions of the Act to call for objections and to consider the same, in matters of this nature it will be very difficult for any Authority much less the Government to examine the various objections being raised after giving hearing to the parties concerned. If the entire villages have to be heard, it will become an endless process. These aspects were borne in mind by the Supreme Court while rendering the decisions in Tulsipar Sugar Company Limited vs. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur and Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija and Others vs. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and Others. Therefore, we are of the view that hearing in each one of the cases is not required. 12. The scope of Notification issued under Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 has been considered by this Court in Surendra Babu vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 1996 Kar. 1797 (DB) vis-à-vis provisions in Panchayat Raj Act have been considered in W.P. No. 39913/95 connected with B. Krishnappa vs. State. The provisions in the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and the Karnataka Municipalities Act in this regard are pari materia. The effect of the said decision in Krishnappa's case is also considered in Surendra Babu's case. 1797 (DB) vis-à-vis provisions in Panchayat Raj Act have been considered in W.P. No. 39913/95 connected with B. Krishnappa vs. State. The provisions in the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and the Karnataka Municipalities Act in this regard are pari materia. The effect of the said decision in Krishnappa's case is also considered in Surendra Babu's case. We have examined the scope of Notification that could be issued under Sections 3 and 4 of the Municipalities Act. The principles stated therein are applicable to the present case as well. 13. Now as a fact it is stated that Panchayat has ceased to exist prior to the issue of Notification. If that is so, there is no impediment for issue of Notification under Municipalities Act at all. The argument that the area in question falls both in a Panchayat and a Municipality is not well-founded. Hence, we find no substance even in the argument advanced on the basis of Notification issued on 8-11-1996. All other contentions are covered by the decision in Surendra Babu's case." 40. Though an attempt was made by Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 that the Deputy Commissioner considering the entire material on record who is the original authority to declare headquarter and Regional Commissioner cannot change or alter, the same cannot be accepted. The material on record clearly depicts that the Deputy Commissioner except issuing the draft notification under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act and the final notification, absolutely no reasons are assigned to declare 'Ujani' village as headquarter of the group of villages. The learned Single Judge with reference to the documents submitted by the Tahsildar in terms of memo dated 7-3-2018 proceeded to hold 'Ujani' village as headquarter. It is not the job of the Court and it is purely an obligation of the Government and its authorities to declare headquarter based on the reports and the documents and the facilities available. Admittedly, in the present case during the pendency of the present appeal, on oral direction issued by this Court, both Deputy Commissioner as well as Additional Regional Commissioner inspected both the villages and drawn the mahazar and submitted the report that 'Gudapalli' village is suitable place for headquarter of all the group of four villages. Admittedly, in the present case during the pendency of the present appeal, on oral direction issued by this Court, both Deputy Commissioner as well as Additional Regional Commissioner inspected both the villages and drawn the mahazar and submitted the report that 'Gudapalli' village is suitable place for headquarter of all the group of four villages. The Courts exercising powers either under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India or under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act cannot substitute the decision made by the Competent Authorities. It is exclusive domain of the Government or its authorities under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act Therefore, the submission made by the learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 cannot be accepted. 41. The learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.R. Raghupathy and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1681 . Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held Administrative instruction - Interference by Court -Mandal headquarters - Location of - Govt's decision to locate headquarters at particular places - Interference by High Court on ground of breach of guidelines - Not warranted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at paras 17 and 30 has held as under: "17. We find it rather difficult to sustain the interference by the High Court in some of the cases with location of Mandal Headquarter and quashing of the impugned notification on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience or that the Headquarter should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the areas surrounded by it or that merely because a particular person who was an influential Member of Legislative Assembly belonging to the party in opposition had the right of representation but failed to avail of it. The location of Headquarter by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like Grama Panchayat and the general public, keeping in view the relevant factors. Even assuming that any breach of the guidelines was justiciable, the utmost that the High Court could have done was to quash the impugned notification in a particular case and direct the Government to reconsider the question. There was no warrant for the High Court to have gone further and directed the shifting of the Mandal Headquarter at a particular place. .............. 30. We find it rather difficult to sustain the judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it has interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarter and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarter should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location of headquarter by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the grama panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarter should be at place 'X' rather than place 'Y' as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners." 42. In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, ultimately, as already stated by us, it is for the State or its authorities to take particular decision to locate headquarter at particular place and not for the Court. The said judgment is in no way helpful to respondents 5 and 6 to arrive at conclusion that 'Ujani' Village is suitable headquarter. 43. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 in the case of B.N. Shankarappa vs. Uthanur Srinivas and Others, AIR 1992 SC 836 . The said judgment is in no way helpful to respondents 5 and 6 to arrive at conclusion that 'Ujani' Village is suitable headquarter. 43. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 in the case of B.N. Shankarappa vs. Uthanur Srinivas and Others, AIR 1992 SC 836 . It was a case under the provisions of Karnatak Zila Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, power to change exists in Deputy Commissioner under Section 4 of the Act read with Section 14 of the General Clauses Act. It was a case whereby the provisions of Section 4(1) and 4(3) the Deputy Commissioner was given entire power to specify the headquarter and who is the authority to specify who can modify under Section 14 of the General Clauses Act. The said judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 44. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present writ appeal has to be answered in the affirmative holding that the appellants have made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of power under the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. 45. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9-3-2018 in W.P. No. 202411/2017 is hereby set aside. The order passed by the Regional Commissioner declaring 'Gudapalli' village as headquarter of the group of four villages dated 24-4-2017 is restored. 46. The valuable assistance rendered by Sri A. Nagarajappa, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri K.M. Ghate, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 to come to this conclusion is appreciated and placed on record. Ordered accordingly.