Dismissed¶47

Sadashiv S/O. Nagappa Huranagi v. the Tahasildar

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2025WP/70181/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition; failure to challenge survey report and PT sheet; encroachment of 18 guntas in Sy.No.1415/5A, Athani; Tahasildar's summary eviction powers under Section 142(2), Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; Sections 141 and 142 noted as independent; Sri Devidas v. Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada (2008 (2) Kar.L.J. 450) relied on; Articles 226 & 227 Constitution of India; KLR-RES; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The survey having been conducted in the presence of both parties, and neither the survey report nor the PT sheet - the basis of the Tahasildar's impugned order - having been challenged by the petitioner till date, the writ petition is not maintainable. ¶46

Sadashiv S/O. Nagappa Huranagi Vs the Tahasildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4500 WP No. 70181 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.70181 OF 2012 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SADASHIV S/O. NAGAPPA HURANAGI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. NEAR MURUGAN TALKIES, ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SANGRAM KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI V. P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE TAHASILDAR ATHANI TALUK, ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶13

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD

¶14

APPASAHEB S/O. SHANKAR PAWAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SOMESHWAR NAGAR, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶15

SAHADEV S/O. SHANKAR PAWAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SOMESHWAR NAGAR, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA, FOR R1; SRI K.H. BAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TAHASILDAR ATHANI IN NO.BND/SR/8/11-12 DATED 27.08.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4500 WP No. 70181 of 2012

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to issue writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the Tahasildar dated 27.08.2012, produced as per Annexure-C.

¶25

Heard Sri Sangram S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent No.1 – State and Sri K.H.Bagi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the materials on record.

¶26

It is the contention of the petitioner that, the petitioner was not notified regarding survey of the land and the Tahasildar has no authority to issue the impugned notice directing the petitioner to vacate the land.

¶27

Per contra, it is the contention of the learned

¶28

AGA that on the basis of the dispute regarding the boundary, the parties have approached the Tahasildar and

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4500 WP No. 70181 of 2012

¶30

there was an enquiry held by the Tahasildar and survey was conducted, in the presence of both the parties. As per PT sheet, 18 guntas of land was encroached by the petitioner. The Tahasildar acting under Section 142 (2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 issued notice directing the petitioner to vacate the encroached portion. Section 142 (2) authorizes the Tahasildar to summarily evict the petitioner who is found to be in wrongful possession of the land. The survey report and the PT sheet were never challenged by the petitioner and therefore he is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.

¶31

On perusal of the materials on record, especially the impugned order passed by the Tahasildar, the respondent has requested the Tahasildar to get the encroached portion of the land vacated. Since the petitioner had not vacated the encroached portion, an application was filed to get the petitioner herein vacated summarily. The surveyor was appointed and the PT sheet was prepared. On considering the PT sheet, the Tahasildar

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4500 WP No. 70181 of 2012

¶33

found that the petitioner is in illegal possession of 18 guntas of land marked therein.

¶34

The Tahasildar passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to vacate 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.1415/5A of Athani, marked in black colour in the PT sheet, and directed him to handover the possession to the private respondents before the Tahasildar, placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sri Devidas and others Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, District, Karwar and others¹ .

¶35

Admittedly, the survey report and PT sheet,

¶36

which are the basis for passing the impugned order, are not challenged by the petitioner. The Division Bench in Devidas and others (supra) considered a similar set of facts, where the owner of the land approached the Tahasildar to get the encroachment removed. The survey conducted proved that the portion of the land was encroached. The Tahasildar after hearing both parties to

¶37

1 2008 (2) Kar.L.J. 450

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4500 WP No. 70181 of 2012

¶39

the dispute, passed the order settling the boundaries on the basis of the survey report and directing the encroacher

¶40

to vacate the encroachment. Under such circumstances, the writ petition came to be filed by the encroacher challenging the order of the Tahsildar. The Division Bench

¶41

of this Court held that, the writ petition is not maintainable, when the petitioner has not challenged the survey report. Even though, encroacher has contended that, he was not notified regarding the survey, the Court held that, the said survey report was not challenged, even when the same was brought to the notice of the encroacher. The Court has also held that, with regard to the dispute regarding the boundary, Section 142 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act speaks about settlement after fixing the boundary. It is also held that, Sections 141 and 142 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, are independent of each other. The Tahasildar was justified in taking action exercising his jurisdiction under Sub-Section (2) of Section 142 of the Act. Thus decision rendered by the Division Bench is aptly applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4500 WP No. 70181 of 2012

¶43

In the present case, admittedly, the survey was

¶44

conducted in the presence of both the parties. Till date,

¶45

the survey report or the PT sheet was never challenged by the petitioner, which is the basis for the Tahasildar to pass the impugned order. Under such circumstances, I am of

¶46

the opinion that the petition is not maintainable.

¶47

Accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶48

Sd/(M.G.UMA) JUDGE

¶49

¶50

CT:ANB: List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8

Sadashiv S/O. Nagappa Huranagi v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadashiv S/O. Nagappa Huranagi v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri. Kalikadevi Devasthan Development Committee, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Yallesh S/O. Gangadhar Lohar Vs the State of Karnataka

Jotiba Omanna Jadhav Vs the State of Karnataka

Sabirabi W/O. Hazarathsab Attar Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Hanamantappa S/O Hucchappa Bilagali Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs the Land Tribunal