• Dispute over a building constructed for the use of SC/ST

Dear Sir,
In HALEANGADI GRAMA Panchayat of Karnataka State One Community hall was constructed in the Year 1990-91 for the exclusive use of  SC/ST community and that hall was named as Ambedkar Bhavan. Till 2010 SC/ST community were using that community hall for marriage,religious ceremonies and other functions.In the year 2012 the panchayat authorities with a plan to snatch away the building from SC/ST community,renovated the building under suvarna grama yojana and denied the exclusive rights to SC/ST community.The president of Dalit Sangharsh Samiti representing SC/ST community made a request to the president/Panchayat development officer handover the renovated community hall for their use.On13/12/2015 the president of DSS taken permission to conduct general body meeting of the DSS.In the meeting a resolution was passed to rename the community hall as Ambedkar Bhavan.Accordingly they wrote the name of Ambedkar Bavan.On the same day the Panchayat development officer along with president and other members opened the community hall and put tar on the name plate and filed a complaint against office bearers of DSS afterwards they filed a case at moodabidri court requesting the court to grant mandatory injection against the office bearers of DSS for not to use the community hall without the permission of grama panchayat.They also got the temporary Injection for not  to use the hall.
What is the remedy available to the office bearers of DSS.How they can counter the case.
Asked 9 months ago in Civil Law from Mangalore, Karnataka
1) you have to file detailed reply that hall was constructed for exclusive benefit of SC /ST community 

2) that for 20 years hall has been used for marriages and other functions of SC/St community 

3) in the guise of renovation members of community are being denied access to the hall 

4) request court to vacate the injunction of obtaining prior permission of gram panchayat 

5) raise the issue in media as to how rights of SC/St are being trampled upon in guise of renovation 

6) you can also complain to national commission of SC / St 

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23240 Answers
1219 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1) as on date mere departmental inquiry is pending and he has not been removed from
His post 

2) he can dike case against the office Beatles of DSS I'd duly authorised to do so 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23240 Answers
1219 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. Since temporary injunction has been ordered it can be assailed before the High Court which can set it aside on merits. 

2. The pendency of enquiry against PDO does not prevent him from acting in his official capacity unless he is placed under suspension.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18102 Answers
448 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
You say that the community hall was built exclusively for the benefit of SC and ST community and the building was dedicated to it, do you have the documentary proofs for it?
If you are the office bearer of the community hall, you should obtain the documents supporting your claim.
What is the basis that the Village panchayat claim this building and for what reason they approached court and temporary injunction?
You should first try to vacate the injunction by filing counter to the petition and also file written statement immediately.
You can challenge the case if you have merits in your side. 
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14026 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
The Departmental enquiry is pending against the Panchayat Development Officer and under the circumstances please advise whether The PDO is right in fikling the case against the office bearers of Dalit Sangarsh Samithi

If you have proper documents to prove your title then the action of panchayat development officer is not maintainable. His claims can be challenged properly.
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14026 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Civil Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14026 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23240 Answers
1219 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18102 Answers
448 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12113 Answers
231 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3534 Answers
130 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
868 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Atulay Nehra
Advocate, Noida
435 Answers
15 Consultations
4.7 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2752 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1915 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1950 Answers
65 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0