Karnataka High Court
C V Venkatasubramaniam vs State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2018
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.18404-18411/2016 (KLR RES)
BETWEEN
1. C V VENKATASUBRAMANIAM,
S/O C K VENKATAKRISHNAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SITE NO 70, TEJASHWININAGARA,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560076.
2. ARAVIND PRASHANTH H B
S/O SATYANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SITE NO.58/59, TESHAWININAGARA,
BANNERGATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560076.
3. HEMANTH KUMAR K R,
S/O K M REVANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
SITE NO.103/104,
TEJASHWININAGAR,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560076.
4. SUDHEER BABU C V
S/O RAGHAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SITE NO.133, TEJASHWININAGAR,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
2
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560076.
5. NIRANJAN H
S/O SUBBANNA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
SITE NO.143, TEJASHWININAGAR,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560076.
6. A. RAMAKRISHNA,
S/O R ANANTHASHAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
SITE NO.144, TEJASHWININAGAR,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560076.
7. SRIMANTHKUMAR JANA,
S/O NARAHARI JANA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
SITE NO.140/141,
TEJASHWININAGAR,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560076.
8. S KRISHNASWAMY,
S/O LATE P. SHANKARA LINGAM,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
GPA HOLDER OF
PARANJOTHI VARADARAJAN,
SITE NO.142, TEJASHWININAGAR,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560076.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A NAGARAJAPPA,. ADV.)
AND
3
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED TO
SURVEY THE LAKE ENCROACHMENTS
OFFICE OF TAHASILDHAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RAFEEUNISA, HCGP)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE R-3 DTD.13.1.2016
VIDE ANNEX-E, E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6 & E7 ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
'PRELIMINARY HEARING' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
Learned High Court Govt. Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader.
3. The petitioners are before this court being aggrieved by the show cause notices issued vide Annexure- E series (Annexures-E to E7). Grievance of the petitioners is that on an earlier occasion respondent No.4 herein the Tahsildar had issued show cause notices invoking the provisions of Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had approached this court in various writ petitions. This court after considering the rival contentions of the petitioners and the State has been pleased to dispose off the writ petition with a direction to consider the objections filed and thereafter to initiate action for eviction of the petitioners by due process of law. The grievance of the petitioners are that despite the said direction respondent No.3 has now issued show cause notices even without considering the 5 replies already filed before the Tahsildar-respondent No.4 herein.
4. Per contra the learned High Court Govt. Pleader would invite the attention of the court to the show cause notices. It is contended that the State Govt. has constituted a special body under the name and style as Lake Development Authority and that the removal of encroachments and restoration and conservation of lakes has been vested with the said statutory body. That the show cause notice is in consonance with the said enactment and the writ petition is premature and misconceived. She would submit that no coercive action has been initiated by the authorities and that the petitioners may be directed to submit their objections/replies to the show cause notice with the authority. It is noticed that the show cause notice is dated 13.01.2016 and the petition has been pending before this court since 2016. In the opinion of this court the show cause notices have not given cause for any lis to enable the petitioners to approach this court. The earlier directions 6 by this court are clear and unambiguous. It is also not denied by the petitioners that the issuance of show cause notice is well within the jurisdiction of the authority. Hence, this court finds no reason to entertain the writ petitions which in the considered opinion of this court is premature and misconceived.
Accordingly, writ petitions stand dismissed. The dismissal of these petitions shall not in any manner derogate from the authority of the earlier orders by this court rendered on the petitions preferred by the petitioners.
Sd/-
JUDGE Chs* CT-HR