Sri Murthy H G Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:893 WP No. 177 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 177 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MURTHY H.G, SON OF LATE GOWDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT HEMAGIRIPALAYA, GANGAONAHALLI POST, THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 572 120.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PUNITH C, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶16

THE TALUK SURVEYOR, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:893 WP No. 177 of 2025

¶19

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE / ORDER DATED 24.12.2024 AS PER ANNXC VIDE NCR.CR.527/2024-25 PASSED BY THE R-2. IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER REF. NO. CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The captioned petition is filed assailing the notice issued by the Tahsildar vide Annexure-C, which is not addressed to the petitioner, indicating that any obstruction or encroachment will be removed on 17.01.2025.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:893 WP No. 177 of 2025

¶30

In the impugned notice, respondent No.2-

¶31

Tahsildar has alleged that an encroachment has taken place in Sy.No.10/2. The petitioner’s primary contention is that the said notice, instead of being a mere intimation or preliminary communication, assumes the character of a final order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that under the guise of this notice, respondent No.2-Tahsildar is likely to proceed with the laying of a cart road through the petitioner’s property, which is classified as private patta land. According to the petitioner, no such cart road

¶32

has ever existed in his property. In support of this claim, the petitioner has relied upon a survey sketch, which has been annexed to the petition as Annexure-D. The said survey sketch, according to the petitioner, is conclusive evidence that no such cart road passes through Sy.No.10/2, thereby challenging the correctness of the assertion made by respondent No.2-Tahsildar.

¶33

On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) has refuted the petitioner’s

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:893 WP No. 177 of 2025

¶35

claim by asserting that the existence of the cart road is clearly recorded in the official village map. It is contended that the village map is a credible and authoritative document maintained by the revenue authorities and, therefore, must be given precedence over the survey sketch relied upon by the petitioner. The learned AGA argues that when there is a conflict between a village map and a privately obtained survey sketch, the village map, being an official record prepared and maintained in the regular course of administration, holds greater evidentiary value. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner’s reliance on Annexure-D does not conclusively disprove the existence of the cart road in Sy.No.10/2.

¶36

However, a significant aspect that cannot be overlooked is that the impugned notice, as per AnnexureC, has not been issued against the petitioner himself but rather against the petitioner’s vendor. The petitioner asserts that he purchased the subject property in the year 2024, and his name has been duly reflected in the Record

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:893 WP No. 177 of 2025

¶39

of Rights, (RTC). If the petitioner is indeed the lawful owner of the property as per the revenue records, then respondent No.2-Tahsildar is obligated to serve a fresh notice upon him and conduct a proper enquiry before taking any further action. The question regarding the existence of the cart road must be adjudicated based on all relevant public documents, including the village map, survey records, and revenue entries. Only after considering the documentary evidence in a fair and transparent manner should the competent authority pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶40

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the

¶41

following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43