Partly allowed

Sri Chandraiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2021WP/25806/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the operative part of a Section 192A notice issued against the petitioner. Directions were issued to treat the notice solely as a call to produce documents again within six weeks, as the authority was required by previous orders to consider such documents before deciding the case.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice is to be read as a call to produce documents; petitioner directed to file documents within six weeks; respondent must dispose of the matter in light of prior judge's observations.

Sri Chandraiah Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 25806/2018 (KLR - RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI CHANDRAIAH, S/O MUDLAGIRIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDENT OF THIPPUR HOSAPALYA, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TQ. TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 223.

¶8

(SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED).

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

¶14

2. THE THASILDAR, GRADE-I, GUBBI TALUK, GUBBI,

¶15

TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 216.

¶16

(BY SRI. A.R.SRINIVASA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 23.05.2018 BEARING NO. NCR.CR 07/2010-11 VIDE ANNEXURE-K, ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, GRADE-I, GUBBI, BY ISSUE OF WRIT CERTIORARI AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents are heard. The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the notice dated 23.05.2018 in No.NCR.CR.07/2010-11 issued by the second respondent [the Tahsildar, Grade-I, Gubbi] for initiation of action under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶21

¶22

The petitioner’s case is that on the previous occasion between 2011 and 2012, the second

¶23

respondent had issued similar repetitive notices alleging that the petitioner had encroached 0-06 guntas in Survey No. 117 of Thippur village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, and the petitioner had responded by his detailed reply/ies. The second respondent [the Tahsildar, GradeI, Gubbi], without considering any of the material placed on record by the petitioner, proceeded to issue order dated 13.11.2012. The petitioner impugned this order dated 13.11.2012 before this Court in W.P. No.48415/2012. This Court has disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

¶24

“ Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annnexure-G dated 13.11.2012 passed by the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar is quashed. The respondent Tahsildar to consider the objections as well as the documents produced by the petitioner, hear him and thereafter

¶25

¶26

pass appropriate orders in a manner known to law. In view of the same, I.A I of 2017 for impleading stands dismissed.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite this Court’s specific and categorical direction to consider the documents produced by the petitioner and to hear the petitioner before passing appropriate orders in a manner known to law, the impugned notice dated 23.05.2018 is issued without hearing the petitioner or without considering the documents. The issuance of the impugned notice dated 23.05.2018 is an abuse of law.

¶28

On instructions from the second respondent, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that though the impugned notice is issued in a template, the real intent in issuing the notice is to afford an opportunity to produce the documents so that the second respondent could consider the documents

¶29

¶30

produced by the petitioner and hear the petitioner before passing appropriate orders. Therefore, the impugned notice may be read accordingly and the writ petition may be disposed of with necessary direction. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present statement is a deft maneuver because the petitioner undeniably has produced the additional documents even after the impugned show cause notice dated 23.05.2018.

¶31

In the light of the rival submissions and the statements made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the impugned show cause notice dated 23.05.2018 is issued with the intent to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the documents as the same are not available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petition may be disposed of directing the concerned to treat the impugned show cause notice as a notice to the petitioner to produce

¶32

¶33

documents and nothing else. The petitioner though asserts that the documents are already being furnished, must be permitted to file such documents within a reasonable time because it is stated on behalf of the second respondent that the documents are not available on record. It would be needless to observe that the second respondent as required by the orders of this Court on 01.06.2017 in W.P. No. 48415/2012, shall consider the documents produced and hear the petitioner before passing necessary orders. Hence, the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

a) The impugned notice dated 23.05.2018 issued by the respondent No. 2 [the Tahsildar, Grade-I, Gubbi] shall be only read as a notice calling upon the petitioner to once again produce the

¶36

documents in support of his defense;.

¶37

¶38

b) The petitioner shall file copies of the document once again within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶39

c) The respondent No. 2 [the Tahsildar, Grade-I, Gubbi] shall dispose of the matter in the light of the observations issued by this Court in W.P.No. 48415/2012.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

mbb

Sri Chandraiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chandraiah v. State of Karnataka

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

Kaveri Retreats and Resorts Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Y N Shankare Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Renukamba Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Rangegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishna Murthy Vs State of Karnataka by