Karnataka High Court
M/S Patel Engineering Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 April, 2017
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.38095 OF 2009(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S.PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.29, 2ND FLOOR, INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
PRAKASH BABU. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BT THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK,
ANEKAL.
3. THE HEBBAGODI GRAM PANCHAYATH
2
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC LAND
CORPORATION LIMITED,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BUILDINGS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.R.RAJASHEKHARAPPA, SPL.G.A., ADVOCATE
FOR R1, R2 AND R4
SRI M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TAHSILDAR,
ANEKAL TALUK 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.7.2009 IN
PROCEEDINGS NO.LND CR 540 OF 2009-10 PURPORTEDLY
UNDER SECTION 192A OF THE KARNATAKA LAND
REVENUE ACT, VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner seeks for a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent Tahsildar dated 8-7-2009 vide Annexure-K seeking eviction of the land in question.
2. The plea of the petitioner is that by virtue of a Joint Development Agreement and other documents of title they have developed the said area by forming a road etc. Notwithstanding the same, the impugned order has been passed by the Tahsildar on the ground that it is a government property consisting of a tank bund area. Hence, the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is substantial documentation to prove the right of the petitioner to develop the property including forming of the road. Notwithstanding the same, that there was not 4 even a notice before any action was taken by the respondents.
4. On the other hand, Sri M.Shivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent disputes the same. He contends that the notice issued to Ramachandra Reddy, is deemed to be a service on the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner on this ground cannot be accepted.
5. Heard learned counsels. Subsequent to filing of this petition various interim orders and directions were issued by this Court. However, on considering the contentions as well as the material on record, I'am of the considered view that the respondents hear the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders. To this extent the impugned Annexure-K is to be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner to file their reply along with any material, if they so desire before the Tahsildar by the end 5 of April, 2017. Thereafter the Tahasildar to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks thereafter. Petition disposed off accordingly.
Till then the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner with reference to the property in question.
SD/-
JUDGE Rsk/-