Dismissed

Rajendra Kumar G v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2016WP/783/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, the petitioner challenged a notice to vacate property purchased via registered sale deed. The High Court held that the authority must first consider the petitioner's representation before passing an order to dispose, staying dispossession in the interim.

What did the court decide?

Restraint imposed on the second respondent from dispossessing the petitioner until an appropriate order is passed by the Tahsildar after considering the petitioner's representation.

Rajendra Kumar G Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.783 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Rajendra Kumar .G, Son of Late M. Ganesh Kumar, Aged about 38 years, Residing at No.348, 8^th Cross, 3^rd “C” Main, Health Layout, Vishwanidam Post, Bangalore 560 091.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Smt. Sandhya .D, Advocate for Shri N. Shivakumar, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, Represented by its Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001.

¶13

The Thasildar, Anekal Taluk,

¶14

¶15

Anekal, Bangalore 562 106.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Shri Venkatesh Dodderi, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents)

¶18

¶19

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned notice dated 18.9.2015 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-F.

¶20

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner is said to be the owner in possession of property bearing Site No.B8/4 culled out of land bearing Sy.No.50/5 measuring 32’ x 50’ of Yadavanahally Village, Anekal Hobli, Bangalore District.

¶23

The petitioner is said to have purchased the property

¶24

from a private developer through a registered sale deed in the year 1994 and since the date of purchase, the petitioner claims to be in possession and has been paying the property tax to the

¶25

¶26

competent authority. Originally, the land bearing Sy.No.50/5 was measuring 2 acres 35 guntas and it was granted to one Y.S. Lakshman Rao as on 23.01.1981. Shri Rao in turn had got the land converted for non-agricultural purposes and along with his son, had sold the land in favour of M/s. Bangalore Builders and Developers under a registered sale deed, which company in turn is said to have sold the property to the vendor of the petitioner. The petitioner has thereafter constructed a house and is residing therein. The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk has issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession of the property, since it has been purchased by one Ramesh Babu and Jagan Mohan at a Government auction.

¶27

The petitioner has sought to explain the manner in which the petitioner had acquired the property in the manner known to law, in spite of which it is the apprehension of the petitioner that he would be dispossessed and therefore, he is before this Court.

¶28

¶29

Since the petitioner has made a representation replying to

¶30

the notice issued by the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar would have to pass necessary orders after considering the explanation and the documents which the petitioner seeks to place reliance on and it is only thereafter that the petitioner could be said to be aggrieved.

¶31

In any event, the Tahsildar would not be in a position to dispossess the petitioner otherwise than under due process of law. Hence, the Tahsildar is restrained from dispossessing the petitioner till such time an appropriate order is passed after considering the representation of the petitioner. The petition is therefore disposed of on that note.

¶32

The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Rajendra Kumar G v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar G 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Tanks and Vessels P.Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M E Prashanth Vs the Chief Secretary to the Government

Farhathe Vs the State of Karnataka

L P Siddappa Vs the Registrar

Sri M R Devaraj Vs the Tumkur Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd.

Mohammed Numaan Asad Vs the Joint Registrar