Disposed¶31

Smt. Sarojamma, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2025WP/25318/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment notice by Tahsildar, Mudigere Taluk; vacation of possession of 1.08 guntas in Survey No.52, Mudigere village (Government land); petitioner's holding of 1 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.102; notice treated as show cause notice; reply within 15 days; fresh survey in presence of petitioner; action only in accordance with law; interim restraint on notice; writ under Articles 226 and 227; KLR-RES; Vattuvari CR No. 14/2024-25; NC: 2025:KHC:34295.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: Annexure-A notice to be treated as a show cause notice; petitioner to reply with requisite documents within 15 days; Tahsildar to consider the reply, conduct a survey in the petitioner's presence and act only in accordance with law; impugned notice not to be precipitated further till the reply is considered. ¶31

Smt. Sarojamma, Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has encroached upon 1.08 guntas of land in Survey No.52 of Mudigere village belonging to the Government, as alleged in the Annexure-A notice requiring her to vacate and hand over possession. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The impugned Annexure-A notice shall not be precipitated any further by the Tahsildar until the petitioner's reply, to be given as directed by the Court, is considered.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of by directing that the Annexure-A notice be treated as a show cause notice to the petitioner, who shall give a reply along with requisite documents to the Tahsildar within 15 days.

¶32

Key takeaways

The Tahsildar shall consider the petitioner's reply, conduct a survey in the presence of the petitioner, and thereafter take action only in accordance with law.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (R Devdas, J.), WP No. 25318 of 2025 (KLR-RES), decided 02.09.2025: Petitioner, stated to be owner of 1 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.102 of Mudigere village, challenged the Tahsildar's notice (Annexure-A, dated 10.07.2025, Vattuvari CR No. 14/2024-25) calling on her to vacate alleged encroachment of 1.08 guntas of Government land in adjoining Survey No.52. She contended no prior notice was issued and no survey was conducted in her presence. The Court disposed of the petition by treating the notice as a show cause notice: petitioner to reply with requisite documents within 15 days; Tahsildar to consider the reply, conduct a survey in the petitioner's presence and take action only in accordance with law; and the notice not to be precipitated further till the reply is considered.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34295 WP No. 25318 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 25318 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SAROJAMMA, W/O SRI LATE S.S.SOMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O 'AMBRUTHESHWAR NILAYA', KUVEMPU NAGARA, MUDIGERE TOWN, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVI KUMAR N R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, MUDIGERE TALUK, MUDIGERE-577132

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED NIL IN VATTUVARI CR NO. 14/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE R-2 PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-A TO THE WP AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:34295 WP No. 25318 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for both the respondents.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioner is directed towards the impugned notice at Annexure - A dated 10.07.2025 issued by the Thasildar, Mudigere Thaluk calling upon the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession of 1.08 guntas of land in Survey No.52 of Mudigere village, which belongs to the Government. It is stated in the notice that the petitioner who is the owner of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Survey No.102 of Mudigere village, which is adjacent to Survey No.52 has formed a layout on his property, but he has encroached upon 1.08 guntas of land in Survey No.52.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no

¶28

prior notice was issued to the petitioner and no survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioner before coming to a conclusion that the petitioner has encroached upon the said land.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34295 WP No. 25318 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The writ petition stands disposed of , directing the

¶32

Tahsildar and the petitioner to treat Annexure - A notice as a show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner shall give a reply along with requisite documents to the Tahsildar, within a period of 15 days from today. The Tahsildar shall consider the reply that would be given by the petitioner, conduct a survey in the presence of the petitioner and thereafter, proceeds to take action only in accordance with law.

¶33

Needless to observe that the impugned notice at Annexure - A shall not be precipitated any further by the Tahsildar, till consideration of the reply, which would be given by the petitioner as directed by this Court.

¶34

Ordered accordingly.

¶35

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶36

KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Smt. Sarojamma, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sarojamma, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chikka Eregowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Jose Anthony Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Smt. Mangalamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri L Doreswamy, Vs the Tahasildar

Smt Roshma Boban Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Mango Mist Resort Vs the Chief Secretary