Allowed

Sri. Venkataramasheety Alias K S Venkataramana v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024WP/25273/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landholder challenged a Tahasildar's eviction notice under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act alleging it was issued without inquiry. Holding the notice prima facie unsustainable without prior inquiry and opportunity to be heard, the Court quashed it and directed fresh proceedings after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned eviction notice bearing No.LND(KA):130/2024-25 quashed; petitioner to appear before Tahasildar on 14.10.2024; fresh orders after hearing within three months; no further action meanwhile.

Sri. Venkataramasheety Alias K S Venkataramana Vs State… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38138 WP No. 25273 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 25273 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI VENKATARAMASHEETY ALIAS K.S.VENKATARAMANA S/O LATE SESHAPPA SHETY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT ACHANGI, HALASULIGE POST, SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573127.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SATHISHA D J.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

TAHASILDAR EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE OFFICE ADALITHA SOUDHA, SAKALESHWAPURA, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573127.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHPURA SUB-DIVISION SAKALESHWAPURA SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573127.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. RADHA B.P., AGA)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38138 WP No. 25273 of 2024

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE AT ANNEXURE-E BEARING NO.LND (KA) 130/24-25, DATED NIL, ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR R2.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents No.1 to 3.

¶25

The petitioner asserts ownership and possession

¶26

of a property identified as Assessment No.36-506-64, Ward No.21 measuring 1560.7704 square meter located at Achangi, Sakaleshpura Town, Hassan District. The petitioner claims that this property was allocated by the Malali Mandal Panchayath in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. To support this claim, the petitioner has produced e-katha as per Annexure-B. Moreover, the petitioner contends that a house has been constructed on this land, and that he has been consistently paying property taxes to the Gram Panchayath. This is

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38138 WP No. 25273 of 2024

¶28

substantiated by tax paid receipt marked as Annexure-C. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that he has obtained an electricity connection for the property and has been regularly paying the associated bills.

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of a show cause notice by Respondent No.2, acting under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The petitioner argues that this notice, which appears to be an eviction order in its final form, was issued without any prior inquiry. This lack of inquiry is a central point of contention for the petitioner, who argues that such an eviction notice is legally unsustainable in its current form.

¶30

In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) has presented a counter-argument, drawing the Court’s attention to the fact that the disputed property is part of what is known as Gomala land. The AGA contends that the documents upon which the petitioner is basing their claim of title are not valid, as the Gram Panchayath does not have jurisdiction over Gomala

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38138 WP No. 25273 of 2024

¶32

land. It is argued that the Gram Panchayath lacks the authority to divert revenue land for other uses, and any such allocation or grant made by the Panchayath is therefore without legal standing and jurisdiction.

¶33

The petitioner’s counsel has referenced a previous judgment from this Court, where in a similar case, it was determined that an eviction notice issued without a prior inquiry was not sustainable. In that instance, the Court directed that the eviction notice should be treated as a show cause notice, thereby giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before any final order was passed.

¶34

In the present case, the facts appear to be strikingly similar. The eviction notice issued by Respondent No.2 also seems to have been issued without conducting a prior inquiry. The documents submitted by the petitioner along with the writ petition indicate, at least on a prima facie basis, that the petitioner’s claim to the property is rooted in a grant or allotment made by the Gram

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38138 WP No. 25273 of 2024

¶36

Panchayath. The petitioner must be given an opportunity to prove that the property in question is not part of Gomala land. Simultaneously, it is incumbent upon Respondent No.2 to thoroughly verify whether the disputed property is indeed part of Gomala land. Only after such a detailed inquiry, in which the petitioner is given a fair chance to present evidence, should Respondent No.2 proceed to pass any orders. Prima facie , the impugned eviction notice, having been issued without an inquiry, is unsustainable.

¶37

For the reasons stated above, this Court passes the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶40

ii. The impugned eviction notice bearing No.LND(KA):130/2024-25 dated Nil issued by respondent No.2 - Tahasildar as per Annexure-E is hereby quashed.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:38138 WP No. 25273 of 2024

¶43

iii. The petitioner shall appear before Respondent No.2/Tahasildar on 14.10.2024. The petitioner is at liberty to submit all relevant documents in support of his contention.

¶44

iv. Respondent No.2/Tahasildar, after hearing the petitioner, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Until such time, Respondent No.2/Tahasildar shall not take any further action.

¶45

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri. Venkataramasheety Alias K S Venkataramana v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Venkataramasheety Alias K S Venkataramana 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

Smt. Thimmakka Vs Sri. Girish

Niveditha K S Vs the State of Karnataka

K G Pillamadappa Vs Chikka Nanjundappa

Sri. Satyanarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Galappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Punith S Vs State of Karnataka