Dismissed

Titan Company Limited v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2019WA/288/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these writ appeals, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed appeals filed against an order by the Single Judge directing a joint survey regarding alleged encroachment on a lake by the appellant. The court held that the appellant would not be prejudiced by the survey and could raise jurisdictional challenges regarding the Tahsildar's powers later, thus no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The appeals are dismissed; the impugned order directing a joint survey is not interfered with; pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.

Titan Company Limited Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NOs.288-298 OF 2019(KLR-RES)

¶9

AND

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO.1062 OF 2019

¶11

Between:

¶12

Titan Company Limited A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its registered office at 3, SIPCOT Industrial Complex Hosur-635126 Tamil Nadu. Having its Corporate office at “Integrity” No.193 Veerasandra, Electronic City, P.O., Off Hosur Main Road Bengaluru-560 100 Represented by its authorized Signatory Mr.Ramesh Bhat ... Appellant

¶13

(By Sri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Counsel, Along with Shri. Shravanth Arya Tandra, Advocate)

¶14

And:

¶15

State of Karnataka Department of Revenue

¶16

¶17

Represented by Principal Secretary M.S.Building Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru-560 001.

¶18

The Tahsildar Anekal Taluk Office Anekal-562106.

¶19

The Revenue Inspector Anekal Taluk Office Anekal-562106.

¶20

The Karnataka Tank Conservation And Development Authority Represented by its Chief Executive Officer Ground Floor, Bheeja Bhavana Karnataka State Seed Corporation Limited Building, Bellary Road Hebbal, Bangalore-560 017.

¶21

Designated Officer

¶22

Karnataka Tank Conservation And Development Authority Ground Floor, Bheeja Bhavana Karnataka State Seed Corporation Limited Building Bellary Road, Hebbal Bengaluru-560024. ... Respondents

¶23

¶24

These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order dated: 08.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP Nos.43414/2018 and 43644-43654/2018 (KLR-RES) and consequently allow the writ petition as prayed for by the appellant.

¶25

¶26

These appeals, coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, Chief Justice delivered the following:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶29

The appellant is the writ petitioner. The first prayer made in the writ petition filed by the appellant was for issuing a writ of mandamus against the respondents restraining them from demolishing or taking any coercive action in respect of the schedule property without issuing notice and without complying with the due process of law. The second prayer was for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish or take any coercive action in respect of the schedule property without providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The third prayer was for quashing the notice dated 5^th October 2016 issued by the Tahasildar alleging that the appellant has illegally constructed corporate office in Sy.No.15 of a lake. The Tahasildar called upon the appellant to submit a reply. The State Government, the Tahasildar, the revenue inspector and the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority were parties to the petition. By the impugned order, the learned

¶30

¶31

Single Judge directed a joint survey to be conducted by the second respondent Tahasildar for identifying the encroachment/violations, if any. The learned single Judge directed that appropriate orders shall be passed by the second respondent in accordance with law pursuant to joint survey after providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

¶32

The first submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant is that by order dated 27^th September 2018, an affidavit was directed to be filed by the fourth respondent – Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority (for short, ‘the said authority’). Instead of the said authority filing the affidavit, the Tahasildar filed the affidavit and by relying upon the affidavit of the Tahasildar that the impugned order has been passed without deciding the issue whether the Tahasildar will have the authority to direct removal of encroachments made on a lake.

¶33

The learned Senior Counsel relied on the provisions of the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Act, 2014 (for short, ‘the said Act of 2014). He

¶34

¶35

invited our attention to Sections 5, 6 and 22 of the said Act of 2014. He submitted that in case of unauthorized construction or unauthorized occupation on a lake, there is an extensive machinery provided under the said Act of 2014 and therefore, the action of eviction, if any, can be taken only under the provisions of the said Act of 2014.

¶36

The submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is that as the tanks/lakes vest in the State Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the said Act of 1964), there are powers under the said Act to take action of eviction against the appellant as the appellant has encroached upon the lake which vest in the State .

¶37

We have considered the submissions. A perusal of the impugned order shows that a joint survey was ordered to be conducted with a view to ascertain whether there is any encroachment made by the appellant on the lake as alleged. Further, a direction was issued to the Tahasildar to give an

¶38

¶39

opportunity of being heard to the appellant in the light of the joint survey report and to pass an order.

¶40

We do not think that the appellant can be prejudiced in any manner by order of carrying out the joint survey. If the appellant has not committed any encroachment on the lake, the truth will come out in the survey. Moreover, if, according to the appellant, the Tahasildar has no power or jurisdiction to take action of removal of encroachment, such contention can be always raised before the Tahasildar in as much as there is a specific direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the Tahasidar to give an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The issue whether the power or jurisdiction of the authorities under the said Act of 1964 is ousted by virtue of the said Act of 2014 can always be agitated by the appellant.

¶41

Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶42

¶43

Subject to what is observed above, the impugned order is not interfered with and the appeals are accordingly dismissed.

¶44

Pending interlocutory applications do not survive and the same are accordingly disposed of.

¶45

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Cm/-