Disposed

M Narayanaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2024WP/30032/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Tahsildar's notice alleging encroachment of a cart road/pathway in Doddadanavahalli Village. The High Court held the dispute involved factual questions and disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioners to reply to the notice and appear before the Tahsildar, with no action until objections are considered.

What did the court decide?

Two weeks' time granted to reply to notice dated 08.08.2024; petitioner to appear before Tahsildar on 10.12.2024; no action till objections considered.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:48312 WP No. 30032 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 30032 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M.NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT MUTTENAHATTI VILLAGE, MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶7

SMT. NAGAMMA, W/O LATE GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT MUTTENAHATTI VILLAGE MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

(BY SRI. A.MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY: CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 103.

¶14

TEHASILDAR, MALUR TALUK, MALUR, KOLAR - 563 130.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:48312 WP No. 30032 of 2024

¶17

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 130.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

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

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, BEARING NO.N.C.R/CR/103/2023-24 DATED 08.08.2024 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F) INSOFAR AS THE PETITOINER IS CONCERNED AND PASS ANY OTHER SUCH ORDER THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INSTANT CASE AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

On the ground that the petitioner has encroached the

¶25

cart road/pathway in Sy.Nos.134, 163, 184, 185, 186 and 189 of Doddadanavahalli Village, Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned notice to the petitioner as to why action should not be initiated against him.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:48312 WP No. 30032 of 2024

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that he has not encroached upon any road as alleged by the respondents and furthermore there is no road in existence as alleged by the respondents. On the said ground, it is prayed that the impugned notice be set aside.

¶29

Learned AGA upon instructions submits that what has been issued to the petitioner is a notice and the dispute involves disputed question of facts and the petitioner is always having the liberty to urge his contentions before the Tahsildar and no action will be initiated against the petitioner without hearing him.

¶30

Admittedly, the enquiry is about whether there is existence of any road/pathway as alleged by the respondent authorities in survey numbers mentioned hereinabove and whether the petitioner has encroached upon any of the same as alleged. The lis involves disputed question of facts and it would be appropriate for respondent No.3 to decide the same after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:48312 WP No. 30032 of 2024

¶33

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of giving two weeks time to the petitioner from today to reply to the impugned notice dated 08.08.2024 issued by respondent No.3. Petitioner shall appear before respondent No.3 on 10.12.2024 without any further notice and submit his reply to the impugned notice. Till such time, respondent No.3 shall not initiate any action against the petitioner and action will be initiate only after considering all the objections filed by the petitioner.

¶34

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶35

PGG

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

M Narayanaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Narayanaswamy 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

Ms Gowramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri N Veeranna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a v Ananda Ram Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Muniyappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Surabhi Chits Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -11

Vajramma Vs State of Karnataka