Sri Chanana Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI CHANANA GOWDA S/O BHRAMHAYYA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAIRNODY HOUSE MALAVANTHIGE VILLAGE DIDUPE POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK D K DISTRICT-574 214.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, TALUK OFFICE, BELTHANGADY BELTHANGADY TALUK D K DISTRICT-574 214.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 22.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER PRODUCED AT ANENXURE.

¶18

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

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:5801 WP No. 2118 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the notice dated 22.12.2021 issued by the respondent as per Annexure-A. In terms of which, respondent-Tahsildar, Belthangady Taluk, Belthangady has alleged that the petitioner has blocked access of the public road, by installing iron gate, which runs through the lands in Sy.Nos.116/1, 117/3, 116/3 of Malavanthige Village connecting Mainoodi, Aggupalu, Keligina Horje, Mallada Palu, Bagidadi, Payudaddu, Bittidoddu Villagers.

¶25

It is further alleged that though by order dated 27.07.2020 as per Annexure-D, petitioner was earlier directed to clear the encroachment which he had allegedly made on the said road by planting arecanut trees thereon, he had remained defiant. Consequently, notice came to be issued as per Annexure-A.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the document at Annexure-A appears to be a notice, indeed it is an order that has been passed directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment, which he has not done. He

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:5801 WP No. 2118 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

further submits that the petitioner himself has filed a suit in O.S.No.114/2020 against certain private persons which is pending consideration in respect of the very same properties. Therefore, he submits that the respondent-authority could not have issued the impugned notice.

¶30

Learned AGA, on the other hand submits that the impugned notice came to be issued in furtherance to the order which was already passed on 27.07.2020 produced by the petitioner as per Annexure-D, which in turn had been passed under the provisions of Sections 133 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of breach of public peace and tranquility by the petitioner. She submits, in any event, since document at Annexure-A is only a notice and if the petitioner is directed liberty to approach respondent-Tahsildar with relevant documents an appropriate order in accordance with law would be passed.

¶31

Heard and perused the records.

¶32

The allegation made against the petitioner is of he blocking and encroaching upon a purported access road running through lands in Sy.Nos.116/1, 117/3, 116/3 of Malavanthige

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:5801 WP No. 2118 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Village, as noted hereinabove. Petitioner apart from denying

¶37

the said allegation has also disputed the very existence of such access road.

¶38

Since, the dispute is with regard to the very existence of public access road and alleged encroachment of the same by the petitioner which has resulted in respondent-Tahsildar issuing the impugned notice, matter is relegated to the respondent-Tahsildar to enquire into the matter after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner regarding the claim of road running through the said Sy.Nos.116/1, 117/3, 116/3 of Malavanthige Village and pass appropriate orders within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till such time no precipitative actions be taken against the petitioner.

¶39

With the above observations, petition is disposed of .

¶40

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶41

RL

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri Chanana Gowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chanana Gowda 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

M/S Primrose Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

N.Ramaswamy Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Kavitharaj Vs the Ministry of Public Works Department

Smt. Ningamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri H S Krishnamachar Vs the Government of India

Jolarpettai Mathan Lara Vs State of Karnataka