Partly allowed

Sri D T Puttappa @ Sri. D T Puttanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Feb 2021WP/2994/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition to quash a notice directing eviction from government land. Court quashed the notice for violation of natural justice due to lack of inspection and failure to provide report or opportunity to explain. Directs revenue officials to restart proceedings with proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

Notice dated 23.11.2020 quashed; revenue officials directed to pass orders after hearing; petitioner not to be displaced.

Sri D T Puttappa @ Sri. D T Puttanna Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2994/2021 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI D.T. PUTTAPPA @ SRI D. T. PUTTANNA, SON OF SRI THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, RESIDING AT ‘SREERAMA KRUPA SHANKARANARAYASWAMY’, BEHIND TEMPLE, MALUR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130 … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, MALUR TALUK, MALUR-563 130. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR.M.,HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PORTION OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.11.2020 MADE IN NO. NCR/CR/118/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, MALUR TALUK,

¶16

¶17

MALUR, THE SECOND RESPONDENT HEREIN IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING OLD SURVEY NO. 147, NEW NUMBER 480 MEASURING 1 ACRE 7 GUNTAS SITUATED AT MALUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, THE ANNEXURE ‘K’ TO THIS WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DIRECTION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO HAND OVER POSSESSION OF THE SAID LAND IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING (OPTIONAL), THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

With consent of learned counsels for the respective

¶21

parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

¶23

the following reliefs:-

¶24

a) Quash the impugned portion of the notice dated 23.11.2020 made in No. NCR/CR/118/2020-21 issued by the Tahsildar, Malur Taluk, Malur, the second respondent herein in respect of land bearing old Sy. No. 147, new number 480 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas situated at Malur village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, the Annexure’K’ to this writ petition in so far as it relates to the direction issued to the petitioner by the second respondent to hand over possession of the said land is concerned.

¶25

b) Grant costs and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.

¶26

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has

¶27

questioned the validity of the notice-cum-termination that the

¶28

¶29

petitioner is stated to have encroached the Government land and he has been asked to evict within a period of seven days. Even though, the writ petition is not maintainable against the notice in view of the Apex Court’s decision in the case of Union of India and another V/s Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported (2006) 12 SCC 28, however there is defect in the notice to the extent of determination that the petitioner had encroached the Government land in view of the report of the Taluk Surveyor, Malur dated 17.11.2020. On the face of the records, it is evident that the petitioner has not been provided with the report of the Taluk Surveyor, Malur dated 17.11.2020 and giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation and relevant revenue records. So also the spot inspection has not been conducted in the presence of the petitioner.

¶30

The petitioner has submitted explanation to the notice dated 23.11.2020 on 27.11.2020 (Annexure-L). In view of these facts and circumstances, this Court in the case of Sri Laxmi Vidhya Vardaka Sanga V/s The District Registrar of Societies, Vijayapur reported in ILR 2015 KAR 4934, in paragraph 4 it is held as under:

¶31

¶32

4. A proper notice is an essential requirement of natural justice. The requirements of a notice in public law is stated by this Court in Sinha S.N. vs. The State of Kar. (ILR 2012 KAR 448) in the following words:

¶33

“4. ............................ When a notice can be said to be valid in law? The term ‘Notice’ originated from the Latin word ‘Notitia’ which means ‘being known’. It is equivalent to information, intelligence or knowledge. Notice is the starting point of any hearing. The right to fair hearing covers every stage through which an administrative adjudication passes, starting from notice to final determination. Notice embodies rule of fairness and must precede an adverse order. It should clearly state the reason as to why a party is required to appear and/or his reply is required. The party concerned should be apprised of the evidence on which the case against him is based and be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. A notice, to be valid in law, should be clear and precise so as to give the party concerned adequate information of the case he has to meet. The adequacy of notice is a relative term and must be decided with reference to each case. The test of adequacy of notice will be whether it gives sufficient information so as to enable the person concerned to put up an effective defence. If a notice is vague or it contains unspecified or unintelligible allegations, it would imply a denial of proper opportunity of being heard. Natural justice is not only a requirement of proper legal procedure but also a vital element of good administration.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶34

¶35

In view of the aforesaid lacunas, Annexure-K dated 23.11.2020 issued by the Tahasildar, Malur is set aside. The revenue officials are hereby directed to take appropriate proceedings and proceed to pass appropriate orders after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶36

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶37

The respondents/revenue officials are hereby directed not to displace the petitioner until final decision is

¶38

taken in the matter.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

mbb

Sri D T Puttappa @ Sri. D T Puttanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D T Puttappa @ Sri. D T Puttanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. B Hemavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Annegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B C Shivanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. E. Shivanna Vs Smt. Suvarnamma

Smt.Ammyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

C. Channarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka