Allowed

M/S. Brundavan Educational Trust v. the Thasildar

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2019WP/5524/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by a Trust to quash a notice issued by a Revenue Inspector regarding alleged encroachment. The Court quashed the notice on the ground that the issuing officer lacked the statutory authority to initiate eviction proceedings under the relevant Acts.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 21.01.2009 issued by the second respondent is quashed. Jurisdictional authorities are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

M/S. Brundavan Educational Trust Vs the Thasildar — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.5524 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

M/S.BRUNDAVAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST BY ITS SECRETARY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.4B, CHIRANJEEVI RESIDENCY, 171/1, 12^TH ‘A’ CROSS, J.P.NAGAR 1^ST PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 078. ....PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ABHINAY.Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANJAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE THASILDAR, CHANNAPATNA TALUK CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA – 562 160.

¶12

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA – 562 160. ....RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA)

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE –F.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by

¶19

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶20

Petitioner is a Trust constituted under the

¶21

Trust Deed dated 23.11.1994 and having established an Engineering College sought for permission of the State Government under Section 19 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 to purchase agricultural land bearing Sy.No.38/9 (1 acre 33 guntas), 40/1 (3 acre 39 guntas), 41/1 (3 acre 6 guntas), 41/3 (1 acre 13 guntas) and 41/5 (0-13 guntas), totally measuring 10 acres 24 guntas

¶22

¶23

situated in Belkere Village of Maluru Hobli Channapatna Taluk. Said request came to be considered and permission was granted by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner by order dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure –

¶24

‘A’). Infact while according permission to run the Educational Institution, the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 23.12.2009 (Annexure – ‘B’) has permitted the petitioner to use the kharab land measuring 18 guntas in Sy.No.40/1 by collecting a sum of Rs.81,000/-. It is thereafter petitioner has constructed a building and is running Engineering College and it has also obtained approval from the appropriate authorities to run the College. Petitioner is also said to have established hostels in the said land after obtaining approval of the building plan form the competent authorities. On the premise that petitioner has encroached a portion of the land bearing Sy.No.54/2, second respondent issued a

¶25

¶26

notice dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure – ‘F’) to the petitioner which has been called in question.

¶27

It is the contention of Mr.Abhinay.Y.T., learned

¶28

counsel appearing for the petitioner that said notice issued by the respondent is without jurisdiction and as such, it is liable to be quashed.

¶29

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶30

though would defend the contents of the notice but is unable to establish the source of power of the second respondent to issue such notice.

¶31

In the light of the impugned notice having been issued by the second respondent who is not a Revenue Officer for being recognized by the Revenue Court as prescribed under Section 24 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act or Authority prescribed under Section 67 or being the Tahsildar to initiate proceedings for eviction

¶32

¶33

under Section 104 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, impugned notice which is issued by the second respondent has to be necessarily held as one without authority of law.

¶34

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) Notice dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure – ‘F’) issued by the second respondent is quashed.

¶37

iii) However, jurisdictional authorities are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for the alleged encroachment, if any, and no opinion is expressed by this Court in that regard.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

M/S. Brundavan Educational Trust v. the Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Brundavan Educational Trust v. the Thasildar

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

Sri a Muniraja Vs State of Karnataka

Shivalingaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Shivalinga Swamy Vs the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

A. M. Sathish Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Haleshappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Shettappa Vs Deputy Director of Land Records