Sri Raju Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED EVICTION NOTICE DATED 10.10.2025 BEARING NO.TAHCKM-ADMINOMISC/103/25(E-76424) ISSUED BY R3

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:11046 WP No. 38260 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

PRODUCED AT ANNX-E AS BEING ULTRA VIRES THE OF THE PROVISION OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is directed towards

¶28

the impugned notice at Annexure-E dated 10.10.2025 issued by the respondent - Tahsildar, Chikkamagaluru Taluk. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an application seeking lease of 1 acre 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.25 of Allampura Village, Chikkamagaluru Taluk and District in terms of Section 94E of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act, 1964'). The petitioner has made one more application in the year 2024 for the same purpose and no orders have been passed by the competent authority till date. However the impugned notice has been issued by the Tahsildar despite the petitioner awaiting consideration of his application and it was impermissible for the Tahsildar to have

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:11046 WP No. 38260 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to vacate the lands in question.

¶33

There is sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner. Unless the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 94E of the Act, 1964 for lease of the lands in question are considered by the competent authority and orders are passed, the Tahsildar could not have issued the impugned notice.

¶34

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned notice at Annexure - E dated 10.10.2025 issued by respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Chikkamagaluru Taluk is hereby quashed and set aside. Directions are also issued to respondent No.3 - Tahsildar to place the applications of the petitioner before the Committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Committee shall thereafter consider the applications and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date on which the application would be placed before the Committee.

¶35