Smt Shameema Vs the State of Karnataka

The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the impugned notice at Annexure-A dated 11.11.2025 issued by the respondent-Tahsildar, Ullala Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District stating that the petitioner has encroached onto government land.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶28

the respondent-Tahsildar could not have issued the notice calling upon the petitioner to evict herself from the lands in question, namely, 01.50 cents of land in Survey No.13/1 of Manjanadi Village, Ulala Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, since, the lands in question have been granted in favour of the petitioner in view of the application for regularization of unauthorized occupation

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6021 WP No. 36663 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

filed by the petitioner under Section 94-CC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

¶32

It is contented that the application was filed on 17.08.2021 and the Tahsildar passed an order on 11.10.2022 at Annexure-G, confirming the grant in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has paid the kimath of Rs.10,957/- on 14.10.2022 at Annexure-H. Thereafter, Hakku Patra at Annexure-J was issued in favour of the petitioner on 24.12.2022.

¶33

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶34

however submits that no reply has been given by the petitioner to the impugned notice bringing to the notice of the Tahsildar the claim regarding the grant said to have been made in favour of the petitioner and the issuance of Hakku Patra in her favour.

¶35

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the

¶36

learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:6021 WP No. 36663 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

papers, this Court finds that the Tahsildar could not have issued the notice directing the petitioner to evict herself within the time stipulated in the notice, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶41

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed while setting aside the impugned notice at Annexure-A. However, the petitioner is required to treat

¶42

the impugned notice at Annexure-A as a show cause notice while giving a reply along with all the documents within a period of 15 days from today. The Tahsildar shall consider the reply and the documents that would be furnished by the petitioner and thereafter proceed only in accordance with law.

¶43

Ordered accordingly.

¶44

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶45

HB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Smt Shameema v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shameema 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 Mohammed Shafiq Arshad Vs Mr. Gladys D Souza

Sri Kumar H N Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kalamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Divya Vs the State of Karnataka

Mangalamma Vs State of Karnataka