Allowed

Vishwanath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/24468/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Tahasildar's eviction notice concerning granted land in Sy.No.46, contending it was A-kharab land. The Court held the notice lacked a prior enquiry and violated natural justice, treated it as a show-cause notice, allowed the petitioner to file objections within four weeks, directed an enquiry, and restrained precipitative action.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:36694 WP No. 24468 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.24468 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/ LATE RANGASHETTY VALAGERAHALLI, HALASUMANE CHICKMAGALUR TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577133

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶13

TAHASHILDAR CHICKMAGALUR TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577133

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.HARISHA A.S, AGA)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:36694 WP No. 24468 of 2024

¶19

QUASH THE NOTICE/ORDER DTD. 22.08.2024 IN NO. VASTARE TT(MI)/23-24 ISSUED BY THE TAHSHILDAR, CHICKMAGALUR TALUK I.E. R-2 (ANNX-A) IN SO FOR AS LAND BEARING SY.NO.46/1 MEASURING 0.32 GUNTAS OF HALASUMANE VILLAGE, VASTARE HOBLI, CHICKMAGALUR TALUK (SL.NO.14) AT ANNX-A AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The captioned writ petition is filed challenging the impugned eviction notice dated 22.08.2024 issued by respondent No.2 – Tahasildar as per Annexure-A.

¶24

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶25

3. The petitioner contends that his father being a landless person applied for grant of land in Sy. No.46 of Halasumane Village, Vastare Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:36694 WP No. 24468 of 2024

¶28

in the year 1971. The petitioner contends that the Tahasildar of Chikkamangaluru has granted 1 acre 30 guntas vide order dated 03.08.1971 as per Annexure -B.

¶29

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds urged in the captioned writ petition would point out that though 1 acre 30 guntas of land in Sy. No.46 is granted, 32 guntas of land in Sy. No.46 is – A-Kharab land and therefore, respondent No.2 Tahasildar lacks jurisdiction to summarily evict the petitioner by exercising power under Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶30

5. Having reviewed the records, it is clearly evident that the petitioner’s father was granted 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy. No.46. The petitioner asserts that kharab land appears to be A-kharab land, while learned AGA asserts

¶31

that it is a B-kharab land. The impugned eviction notice, prima-facie, is not preceded by an enquiry though it is in the form of show cause notice. Under the impugned

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:36694 WP No. 24468 of 2024

¶34

eviction notice, respondent No.2 – Tahasildar has resolved to summarily evict the petitioner on the premise that he has unauthorisedly occupied the petition land.

¶35

6. The petitioner, who is asserting right based on the

¶36

grant certificate, is entitled to substantiate that petition land is A-kharab land. Since the impugned notice is not preceded by proper enquiry and the same is passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned eviction notice has to be treated as a showcause notice. The petitioner deserves an opportunity to contest this eviction notice. Till respondent No.2 – Tahasildar decides and examine the petitioner’s objection and pass appropriate orders after holding an enquiry, no precipitative action shall be taken. Hence, this court proceeds to pass the following;

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36694 WP No. 24468 of 2024

¶40

(ii) The impugned eviction notice dated 22.08.2024 shall be treated as a show-cause notice.

¶41

(iii) The petitioner shall tender his objection within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of order copy.

¶42

(iv) Respondent No.2 – Tahasildar shall look into the objection and after hearing the petitioner, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶43

¶44

(v) Till then, respondent No.2 Tahasildar shall not take any precipitative action.

¶45

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶46

NBM

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Vishwanath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vishwanath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Savubai Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shahnawaz Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Eswar Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nanjaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Guruvamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Albert Vs the Thasildar