Disposed

Sri.K.C.Dinesh v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC29 Jun 2021WP/10196/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a seven-day notice to vacate land as encroached. Court held that under a 2008 circular, an enquiry is required before vacation direction. Notice read as granting 15 days for representation and enquiry ordered.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice read as granting 15 days; liberty to file detailed representation; respondent to hold necessary enquiry. No precipitous action allowed.

Sri.K.C.Dinesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10196/2021 (KLR -RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI K.C. DINESH, S/O CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1’A’, KUMBARAHALLI, BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 115.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI GANGADHARAIAH A.N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201.

¶12

THE THAHASILDAR, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, BELUR-573 209.

¶13

….RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE OF BEARING NO. DARKASTHU/460/2019-2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E UNDER SECTION 104 OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner and the learned Additional

¶20

Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal.

¶21

The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the show cause notice bearing No. Darkasthu /460/2019-2020 issued by the Tahsildar, Belur Taluk, Hassan District [the second respondent] under Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 granting seven days time to the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized occupation of an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas in Survey No. 8 of

¶22

¶23

Kumbarahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Belur Taluk [ the Subject Land ].

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted an application for regularization of unauthorized occupation in Survey No. 8 of Kumbarahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Belur Taluk, and this application has been acknowledged in terms of the acknowledgement dated 11.12.2018 [Annexure-A]. The petitioner has also constructed residential premises in this land many decades back as seen in the photographs as per Annexure-D. Nevertheless, the impugned notice is issued directing the petitioner to vacate the subject premises, without even an opportunity of hearing, predetermining that the petitioner is liable to be vacated from the subject property.

¶25

¶26

4. The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶27

does not dispute that in terms of the prevailing Government Circular dated 08.09.2008, the second respondent could not have issued notice providing only seven [7] days period to show cause, and that the petitioner cannot be directed to vacate and handover without an enquiry. Therefore, while recording the petitioner’s case as also the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the land in Survey No. 8 of Kumbarahalli village, Kasaba Hobli is reserved for the purpose of allotment to ex-servicemen, the petition stands disposed of by the following:-

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The impugned notice issued by the Tahsildar, Belur Taluk [respondent No.2] shall be read as granting 15 days notice to the petitioner from 11.07.2021 to show cause against the allegation of encroachment of the subject property with the liability to vacate the

¶30

¶31

premises. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a detailed representation with the second respondent and the second respondent shall hold necessary enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law. Until then, there shall be no precipitous action against the petitioner as regards the subject land.

¶32

SD/JUDGE

¶33

mbb

Sri.K.C.Dinesh v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.C.Dinesh v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Smt Javanamma Vs Divisional Forest Officer

M/S. Dhanalakshmi Quarry Vs Thasildar

Narayanaswamy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Cushman and Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Abdul Hameed Memorial

Smt Ramakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Kamalamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner