Petitioner sought to be evicted from allotted land. Court found impugned order was arbitrary, contradictory regarding possession, and failed to act against the Board for non-payment of dues before proceeding against the allottee. Order quashed.
The respondent's impugned order dated 18.12.2015 in NCR/CR.34/2015-16 is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1405/2016 (KLR/RES)
BETWEEN :
M/S. DHANALAKSHMI QUARRY CRUSHING INDUSTRY S.NO.34,35,36, DYAVASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, I PHASE, WHITEFIELD,BENGALURU - 48 REP BY ITS PROPRIEOTR, SRI. H.S.PRAKASH S/O LATE H.M. SHAMANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(By SMT.S. NAGANANDINI., ADVOCATE FOR Sri. JAIRAJ G, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THASILDAR OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.
... RESPONDENT
(By SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS.,AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN SUIT NO. N.C.R/C.R. 34/15-16 AT
2
ANNEXURE-J BY ISSUING THE APPROPRIATE WRIT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner, which is allotted 13276 Square Metres in Sy.Nos.34, 35 and 36 of Dyavasandra Village, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru, has filed this petition calling in question the order dated 18.12.2015 in NCR/CR.34/2015-16 (Annexure-J) in the proceedings before the respondent. The respondent has directed eviction of certain Mr.Ravindra Reddy and Mr.Narayanappa from 2 parcels of land measuring 3 acres 15 guntas and 1 acre in Sy.No.34 of Devasandra village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk in exercise of the power conferred under Section 94 and Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'KLR Act' ) with a direction for initiation of proceedings under section 192A of the KLR Act.
3
4
notified in favour of M/s KIADB in the year 1967. M/s KIADB has allotted an extent ad measuring 13276 Square Meters in these lands in Sy.Nos.34,35,36 of Dyavasandra village [ the Subject Property ] in favour of the petitioner, which was then represented by its proprietor, Mr. Shamanna Reddy. This allotment has culminated with the execution of the registered deeds in favour of the petitioner as contemplated under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Rules, 1966.
the original proprietor, Mr.H.M. Shamanna Reddy, the allotment of the subject property was transferred in favour of his wife, Mrs. Janakamma. Later in the partition amongst the legal heirs of Mr. H.M.Shamanna Reddy, the subject property is allotted to the present proprietor, Mr. Prakash Reddy. Mr.Ravindra Reddy is Mr.Prakash Reddy’s brother. The respondent does not contest these assertions, but the impugned order is
5
because Mr. Ravindra Reddy [the petitioner's brother] has encroached 3 acres 15 guntas in Sy.No.34 of Dyavasandra village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, and this conclusion is based on the reports filed by the Revenue officer and the Taluk Surveyor. It is also reasoned that the allotment of the subject land by M/s KIADB is contrary to law because it is without the government’s approval.
6
to tested as against the reasons offered therein, and the impugned order cannot be sustained by reasons offered later. It is not seen from the impugned order that the respondent has opined that the land in Sy.No.34 of Dyavasandra village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk continues to be Government land because M/s KIADB, in whose favour the notifications are issued as contemplated under the Karnataka Industrial Area Board Act, has not deposited the requisite amount and possession has not been handed over. There is an obvious effort to justify the reasoning in the impugned Order that the subject land is Government property.
7
This contradiction, in the considered opinion of this Court, would only mean that the impugned order is without application of mind. Furthermore, if there is any default by M/s KIADB and if any action could be taken because of such failure, the law commands that action be taken against M/s KIADB before any proceedings are initiated against persons claiming through M/s KIADB. Admittedly, M/s KIADB is not even issued with any notice. The impugned order is arbitrary and without application of mind. As such, the respondent’s impugned order dated 18.12.2015 in NCR/CR.34/2015-16 (Annexure-J) is quashed. If the State could proceed in law against M/s KIADB and its allottees, such action shall be taken in strict adherence to law.
SD/JUDGE
nv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned eviction order is sustainable when the reasoning contradicts the facts and the allottee remains in possession.
Whether the Revenue Department can initiate proceedings against a private allottee when the Industrial Area Board has not deposited the requisite funds.
Whether the impugned order suffers from being passed without application of mind due to contradictory findings regarding possession.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Dhanalakshmi Quarry Crushing Industry
Thasildar, Office of Tahsildar Bangalore East Taluk
B. M. Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
