Karnataka High Court
M/S Patel Realty (India) Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 10 August, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.17657/2011 (KLR-RES)
& W.P.Nos.17727-78/2011 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/s.Patel Realty (India) Ltd.,
A company registered under
The Companies Act, 1956,
Having its registered office at
Patel Estate Compound, S.V.Road,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai - 400 012,
And having its Branch Office at
Onyx Centre, 5th Floor,
No.5, Museum Road,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by Mr.Lakshminarayana.N
2. Rupen Patel,
S/o P.A.Patel,
Residing at A.K.Patel Bungalow,
No.5/D, Dadabhai Road,
Next to Arya Samaj, Santacruz (west),
Mumbai - 400 053. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri C.N.Poonacha, Adv. for M/s.Lexplexus, Advs.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Vikasa Soudha,
2
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore District,
Bangalore.
3. Tahsildar,
Anekal Taluk,
Anekal.
4. Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Deputy Commissioner,
Office Building, Near City Civil
Court Complex, K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Chithappa, Spl. Govt. Adv. for R1 to R4)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash & set aside
Annexure-A notice of the Tahsildar - R3 dated 3.5.11 and etc.
These petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing-B
Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are calling in question the notice dated 03.05.2011 issued by the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal. The impugned notice is produced at Annexure- A.
2. Several contentions are urged by the petitioners on the merits of the matter contending interalia that the notice is totally contrary to the records maintained by the Government 3 and the order earlier passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, on 07.11.2009 in RRT/1/A/CR/71/09-10.
3. It is also principally contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned notice, in substance, is an order passed by the Tahsildar having formed an opinion that the lands in question bearing Sy.Nos.155/8, 276/1 and 275 situated at Hulimangala Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, are Government lands encroached by the petitioners and therefore the petitioners have to vacate the same. It is in this background, counsel for the petitioners submits that though the impugned notice is styled as a show-cause notice, the same cannot be sustained in law as the Tahsildar has recorded a finding on the merits of the matter without hearing the petitioners on the allegations that they have encroached the government land. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the respondent - Tahsildar has referred to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3969/2007 requiring the Competent Authorities to notify the person concerned who is in possession of the land and hear him before passing an order initiating action under 4 Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), the authorities have failed to comply with the directions issued in the said order as they have issued the notice having formed an opinion that it is a government land encroached by the petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel representing the State submits that the impugned notice is a show-cause notice and whatever defence that the petitioners want to take, can be taken by filing objections. Whereupon, the Tahsildar will pass appropriate orders considering the objections on merits without being, in any manner, influenced by the observations made in the impugned notice.
5. In the light of the above submissions of the counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the Tahsildar is under an obligation to issue notice, hear the petitioners before coming to the conclusion that it is a government land encroached by the petitioners and to take action under Section 192-A of the Act for initiating criminal proceedings including under Section 94(3) of the Act and keeping in mind the order passed in W.P.No.3969/2007, I am of the clear view that the impugned notice is not a notice simplicitor, but it is in the 5 nature of the direction to the petitioners to vacate the alleged encroached portion within 15 days. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained. However, this cannot come in the way of the Tahsildar issuing a fresh show-cause notice calling upon the petitioners to show-cause why action should not be initiated against them under Section 192-A read with Section 94(3) of the Act. Hence, the impugned notice is set aside.
6. As this Court has set aside the notice and as the proceedings are initiated alleging that it is a government land illegally encroached by the petitioners, the Tahsidar shall issue a fresh notice calling upon the petitioners to show-cause why action should not be initiated against them. Whereupon, the petitioners will be at liberty to file their objections and to establish that it is not a government land and that they have not encroached any portion of the government land. The Tahsildar shall thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.
7. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed in part. The impugned notice is set aside. The Tahsildar shall issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioners and after hearing the 6 petitioners shall pass an order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS