K Parameshwarappa S/O Mallanna Vs Deputy Commissioner

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 13/01/2025 BEARING NO. KU/BHOOMI/255/2024-25 ISSUED 3^RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-H, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ISSUANCE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO HOLD JOINT SURVEY AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS AND THEN INITIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4572 WP No. 101757 of 2025

¶28

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice dated 13.01.2025, issued by respondent No.3, produced as per Annexure-H, and to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to hold a joint survey and pass appropriate orders, and then to initiate action in accordance with law.

¶31

Heard Sri.Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3. Perused the materials on record.

¶32

It is the contention of the petitioners that, respondent No.3 had issued notice dated 13.01.2025, as per Annexure-H, calling upon the petitioners to vacate the so-called encroached portion in survey No.211/C of Moka village, measuring 22 guntas. Respondent No.3 had cautioned the petitioners that the proceedings

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4572 WP No. 101757 of 2025

¶35

under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘the KLR Act’, for short) would be initiated to launch criminal prosecution.

¶36

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that, no sufficient opportunity is given to the petitioners to reply to the notice, as the petitioners were called upon to remove the so-called encroachment within 3 days. Moreover, respondent No.3, the Tashildar, was not authorized under the KLR Act, to issue such a notice as per Annexure-H. The respondents have not followed the procedure as contemplated under the KLR Act, by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to defend themselves. Under the circumstances, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶37

Per contra, it is the contention of the learned AGA that, it was found that the petitioners have encroached 22 guntas of land in survey No. 211/C of Moka village, and therefore, notice was issued.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4572 WP No. 101757 of 2025

¶39

The materials on record disclose that, the Tahsildar, being the head of the Taluka Task Force Committee, Ballari, issued the impugned notice at Annexure-H, which is dated 13.01.2025. The petitioners were asked to remove the encroachment in question within 18.01.2025, i.e., within 5 days from the date of issuance of the notice. Respondent No.3 has not made it clear as to under which provision of law he has issued the notice, calling upon the petitioners to clear the encroachment.

¶40

Learned AGA submits that the notice was issued under Section 39 of the KLR Act. But Section 39 of the KLR Act deals with the manner in which a person, who is in wrongful possession of the land, could be evicted. It authorizes the Deputy Commissioner to seek eviction of such persons, but not the Tashildar or the Taluka Task Force.

¶41

In view of the above, I do not find any justification for the respondent authority to issue Annexure-H, calling

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4572 WP No. 101757 of 2025

¶43

upon the petitioners to clear the so-called encroachment within 5 days. Therefore, I find considerable force in the contention taken by the petitioners. Hence, Annexure-H is liable to be quashed. However, the respondents may initiate action against the petitioners, if they are so advised, by following the due procedure as contemplated under the KLR Act. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45