HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA disposed of a writ petition challenging an eviction notice. The court directed Tahasildar to consider objections and grant a two-week stay on occupation pending the decision.
Stay on occupation for two weeks pending Tahasildar's decision; costs made easy.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.21970 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. B.R. BHARATHI W/O B.R. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RES/AT BOLANGADI KODI HOUSE, BOLANGADI KODI VILLAGE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 231.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY .D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 219.
5 . THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PANE MANGALORE HOBALI B.C. ROAD, JODUMARGA POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 219.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS D/W V/O DATED 18.11.2022)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 27.12.2021 BEARING NO. LND. CR/611/2016-17 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ALLOW THE W.P. AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The challenge is to the notice dated 27.12.2021 issued by the Respondent-Tahasildar, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-C whereby Petitioner is threatened of
dispossession should he fail to vacate the premises on his own. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that his client has already filed objections on 29.12.2021 at Annexure-D and no order thereafter having been passed,
3
threat posed in the impugned order at Annexure-C is unsustainable.
official Respondent Nos.1 to 4, notice to Respondent No.5 having been dispensed with, opposes the petition contending that ordinarily, in matters like this, the Tahasildar has to take a decision after considering the reply filed by the citizens to the eviction Notices and therefore, he would instruct his clients to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. He requests the Court to keep open all the contentions so that a fair decision would be taken at the hands of answering Respondents. This is absolutely fair.
In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed off. Till a decision is taken in the matter by the Tahasildar and
two weeks lapse thereafter, it is communicated to the Petitioner by registered post acknowledgement due, the
4
Petitioner’s occupation of the subject property shall not be
disturbed. All contentions are kept open.
Costs made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to issue a stay order on eviction while the Tahasildar considers objections to the notice
Whether the threat of dispossession in the notice is legally sound without a final order
SMT. B.R. BHARATHI
STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE
THE TAHSILDAR, BANTWAL TALUK
THE REVENUE INSPECTOR PANE MANGALORE
THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PANE MANGALORE
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
