Disposed

N M Manjunath v. the Tahsildar

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2021WP/10060/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a premature writ petition appealing a show cause notice for alleged land encroachment, directing the authorities to measure lands with notice, adjudicate objections under SLRA Section 192A, and resolve jurisdictional questions before further action.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to measure both lands with notice, consider objections complying with Circular dated 08.09.2008, and decide on jurisdictional issues; respondents prohibited from precipitous action.

N M Manjunath Vs the Tahsildar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10060/2021 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

N. M. MANJUNATH S/O LATE N MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O VOKKALAGERI, NANJANGUD MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶8

NANJUNDASWAMY S/O LATE N. MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O VOKKALAGERI, NANJANGUD MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. P MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE TAHSILDAR NANJANGUD TALUK NANJANGUD -571 301.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSURU - 570 001.

¶14

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVAS GOWD, AGA )

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TAHSILDAR NAJANGUD TALUK, NANJANGUD BEARING NO. L.N.D(1) C.R./780/1920 DATED 05.04.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND NOTICE BEARING NO. L.N.D/C.R/780/2021-22 DATED 07.06.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition.

¶21

¶22

The petitioners, who are the owners of land in Sy.No.25/3 (Old Sy.No.25/1) of Nanjangud, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, have filed this petition impugning the show cause notice dated 07.06.2021 issued by the Tahsildar, Nanjangud, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk (the first respondent) alleging that the petitioners have encroached about 0.01¼ guntas in the adjacent land in Sy.No.12 of Tahsildar, Nanjangud, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this impugned notice dated 07.06.2021 is issued on a purported survey which is without notice to the petitioners; if the petitioners' lands in Sy.No.25/3 and the adjacent land in Sy.No.12 are measured, the allegation of encroachment of 0.01¼ would be shown to be wholly erroneous. Even otherwise, the first respondent could not have issued notice as the lands

¶24

¶25

are within the local limits of Nanjangud City Municipality. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 07.06.2021 cannot be sustained.

¶26

The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that only Show Cause Notice dated 07.06.2021 is issued and even according to the petitioners, they have filed their response, but a decision is yet to be taken. The writ petition is premature. He also states that a prior notice is also issued on 05.04.2021 to the petitioner as per Annexure - F.

¶27

In the light of the rival submissions, and the undisputed fact that a decision is yet to be taken after issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 07.06.2021 and receipt of the petitioners response, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be just and proper to dispose of the writ petition with certain directions. As it

¶28

¶29

is asserted that the petitioner’s land and the adjacent land [a government land] are not measured with notice to the petitioner, and the encroachment is 0.01¼ guntas, the first respondent shall ensure that both the lands are measured after due notice to the petitioners. The first respondent shall consider the petitioners' objection in strict compliance with the Circular dated 08.09.2008 issued by the Government as a condition for invoking the provisions of Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶30

The first respondent shall also specifically answer the question of jurisdiction in the light of the assertion that the property is within the Nanjangud Municipal Corporation and as such he would have no jurisdiction. The petitioners are permitted to file a certified copy of this order with the first respondent and the first respondent shall decide in the light of the observations

¶31

¶32

made hereinabove. The respondents shall not take any precipitous action until consideration in terms of the orders of this Court.

¶33

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

SD/JUDGE

¶35

N M Manjunath v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N M Manjunath v. the Tahsildar

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.S.P.Vasantha Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner

M/S Siddharth Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commisioner of Public Instructions

Smt. Prabhavathi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Manoours Vs the State of Karnataka

Garlapati Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka