Allowed

Smt Gayathri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024WP/25562/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged an eviction notice issued by the Tahasildar under Section 94(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The court held only the Deputy Commissioner is competent to summarily evict unauthorized occupants and quashed the notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned eviction notice dated 23.08.2024 issued by respondent No.3 - Tahasildar quashed and set aside; liberty left to the competent authority under Section 94(3).

Smt Gayathri Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39314 WP No. 25562 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.25562 OF 2024 (KLR-LG)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.GAYATHRI W/O NAGARJACHARI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT SIDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE

¶8

KUSHALNAGARA HOBLI AND TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571232

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.H V MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI - 573201

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR AND TALUK MAGISTRATE KUSHALNAGARA TALUK KUSHALNAGARA - 573123

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.HARISHA A.S., AGA)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39314 WP No. 25562 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT QUASHING THE NOTICE BEARING NO.TKT/OOTHUVARI TASK FORCE/08/2024-25 DTD 23.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-3 UNDER SEC 39 AND 94 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT AT ANNEXURE-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

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents.

¶24

The petitioner is aggrieved by impugned eviction notice dated 23.08.2024 issued by respondent No.3 - Tahasildar evidenced at Annexure-A. The said order is under challenge.

¶25

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA.

¶26

On perusal of the grounds raised in the captioned writ petition, this Court has noticed that respondent No.3 - Tahasildar lacks competency and jurisdiction to summarily evict the unauthorized occupant by exercising power under

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39314 WP No. 25562 of 2024

¶28

Section 94(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. This Court has also noticed that the power to summarily evict the unauthorized occupant under Sections 94 and 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is vested with the respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner. However, notice in the case on hand is issued under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

¶29

The Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.17761/2022 has also held that respondent No.3 - Tahasildar lacks competency and jurisdiction to summarily evict the unauthorized occupant by exercising power under Section 94(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶30

On perusal of Section 94(3) of the Karnataka

¶31

Land Revenue Act, it is clearly evident that respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner is authorized to summarily evict unauthorized occupant in respect of the petition land including crops and trees raised in the land.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:39314 WP No. 25562 of 2024

¶34

In the case on hand, it is respondent No.3 -

¶35

Tahasildar, who has issued eviction notice. It is virtually

¶36

in the nature of final order by exercising power under Section 94(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The order under challenge clearly lacks Authority and jurisdiction to summarily evict the petitioner.

¶37

The above stated Section clearly empowers respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner summarily evict the unauthorized occupant and not by respondent No.3 - Tahasildar. On this sole count, the order under challenge is liable to be set-aside and quashed.

¶38

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶41

(ii) The impugned notice bearing No.TKT/OOTHUVARI TASK FORCE/08 /2024-25 dated 23.08.2024 vide Annexure-A issued by respondent No.3 -

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39314 WP No. 25562 of 2024

¶43

Tahasildar is hereby quashed and set-aside.

¶44

(iii) However, this order will not come in the way of the Competent Authority to take appropriate action as provided under Section 94(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

¶45

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶46

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Smt Gayathri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gayathri 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C D Mukundappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Narayanappa S/O Marisonnappa Vs Sri Pillappa

Vasu Bangera Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L Nayanisha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Janardhan S N Vs Deputy Commissioner