Disposed

Sri. Pyare Jan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2013WP/55337/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging a notice for land survey were not entertained as no survey took place. The petitioner was permitted to file objections, and the Tahsildar was directed to consider them before conducting a survey or issuing a fresh notice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file objections; Tahsildar directed to consider objections before survey or issue fresh notice.

Sri. Pyare Jan Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

W.P.NOS.55337/2013 & 55616-617/2013 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PYARE JAN AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS SON OF BASHA SAB RESIDING AT BEHIND MUTTON MARKET ROAD, MALUR TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SHANKAR REDDY C, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE - 01

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR MALUR TALUK MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT

¶14

SRI M R JAGADEESH SON OF LATE M V RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.161, TANK ROAD MALUR TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTICE DT.18.11.13, ISSUED BY THE R2, AS PER ANN-F TO THE WP ISSUED IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.460, 525 & 527 OF MALUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶19

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

Notice dated 18.11.2013 issued by the 2^nd respondent, Tahsildar, Malur Taluk, Malur is assailed in these writ petitions.

¶21

By the said notice, the petitioner was requested to be present for conducting a survey in respect of land bearing Sy.No.112 (new Sy.No.527). Survey was to take place on 6.12.2013.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on that day, in fact, survey did not take place. As the impugned notice is issued by the 2^nd respondent to notify the petitioner about the proposed survey to be conducted in respect of the land in question, at this

¶23

- 3 -

¶24

stage, the writ petition cannot be entertained. The petitioner is permitted to file his objections to the impugned notice, if the same has not been filed. If objections are filed then, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the same before proposing to undertake the survey. If the second respondent intends to conduct survey on the land in question, even after considering the petitioner’s objections, then in that event, the 2^nd respondent is directed to notify the petitioner afresh about the proposed date of survey, well in advance.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

nas.

Sri. Pyare Jan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Pyare Jan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Muniarasamma Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Sri Raju S Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd. Vs Jt. Commissioner of Commercial

The Karnataka State Board of Wakfs Vs the Land Tribunal

M/S Urban Heights Vs the Deputy Commissioner