Karnataka High Court
Sri. Abbaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2013
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION NOs.14855-14867 OF 2013 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Abbaiah,
S/o.Sri Venkata Swamy,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at No.240,
Volepurada Dinne,
Sorahunase,
Bangalore East Taluk - 560 087.
2. Smt.Susheelamma,
W/o.Sri Thyagaraj,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at No.E-135,
Volepurada Dinne,
Sorahunase,
Bangalore East Taluk - 560 087.
3. Smt.Gowramma,
W/o.Sri Nanjappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at No.137,
Volepurada Dinne,
Sorahunase, Amani Bellandur,
Bangalore East Taluk - 560 087.
4. Sri Narayana Swamy,
S/o.Sri Muni Swamy,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at No.240/1,
Volepurada Dinne,
Sorahunase,
2
Bangalore East Taluk - 560 087.
5. Sri Shankara,
S/o.Sri Muniyappa,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at No.34,
Volepurada Dinne,
Sorahunase,
Bangalore East Taluk - 560 087.
6. Smt.Susheelamma,
W/o.Late Sri Sureshappa,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.229,
Volepurada Dinne,
Sorahunase,
Bangalore East Taluk - 560 087.
7. Sri Shamanna,
S/o.Sri Muniyappa,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No.206,
Volepurada Dinne,
Sorahunase,
Bangalore East Taluk - 560 087.
8. Smt.Papamma,
W/o.Sri Manjunath,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.136,
Volepurada Dinne,
Sorahunase,
Bangalore East Taluk - 560 087.
9. Smt.Sowbhagyamma,
W/o.Sri Narayanappa,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at No.E-132,
Volepurada Dinne,
Sorahunase,
Bangalore East Taluk - 560 087.
10. Smt.Bhagyamma,
3
W/o. Sri Muniswamy,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.57,
Volepurada Dinne,
Sorahunase,
Bangalore East Taluk - 560 087.
11. Sri Muniyappa,
S/o.Sri Pillappa,
Aged about 43 years,
Residing at No.21,
Volepurada Dinne,
Sorahunase,
Bangalore East Taluk - 560 087.
12. Smt.Rathnamma,
W/o.Sri Narayanappa Swamy,
Aged about 70 years,
Residing at No.145,
Volepurada Dinne,
Sorahunase,
Bangalore East Taluk - 560 087.
13. Sri Babu,
S/o. Sri Narayanappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at No.254,
Volepurada Dinne,
Sorahunase,
Bangalore East Taluk - 560 087. ... Petitioners
(By Sri T.N.Vishwanath, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Revenue Secretary,
Multistoried Buildings,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban,
Kandaya Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 002.
3. The Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement)
Bangalore Urban,
Kandaya Bhavan, K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 002.
4. The Additional Director General
Of Police, BMTF, Kandaya Bhavan,
K.G.Road, Bangalore - 560 002.
5. The Tahsildar,
K.R.Puram,
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 087.
6. The Deputy Tahsidlar,
Varthur Nada Kacheri,
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 087.
7. The Revenue Inspector,
Varthur Circle, Varthur,
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 087. ... Respondents
(By Smt.M.C.Nagashree, HCGP)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quaash the impugned
order dated 21.03.2013 passed on the file of the Tahsildar,
K.R.Puram, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore vide Annexure
BE, etc.
These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary hearing,
this day, the Court made the following:
5
ORDER
The petitioners have called into question the order, dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure-BE) passed by the Tahsildar in exercise of the power conferred by Section 39(ii) and 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('the said Act' for short) for clearing the properties in question from the unauthorized occupation.
2. Sri T.N.Vishwanath, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have put up the buildings on the schedule properties and have been residing therein. He submits that without issuing any notice to the petitioners, the respondents are trying to dispossess them forcibly. He complains of the violation of the principles of natural justice. He also complains of the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners are dispossessed, they would be rendered roofless. He submits that the panchayat itself has formed the layout and has provided the petitioners and the similarly placed persons with the basic amenities. He submits that the petitioners' names 6 figure in the voters' list, the electricity connections and water supply are given to their houses.
3. Smt.M.C.Nagashree, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents submits, on instructions, that all the unauthorized occupants are already issued with the notice to vacate their encroachment.
4. Evicting a person from the unauthorized occupation of the Government land is a power coupled with the duty of the revenue officers. In this regard, it is beneficial to refer to the Apex Court's judgment in the case of JASPAL SINGH & OTHERS vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2011 SC 1123. Paragraph No.13 of the said decision is extracted hereinbelow:-
13. ................ The appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back 7 to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village. The letter dated 26.9.2007 of the Government of Punjab permitting regularization of possession of these unauthorized occupants is not valid. We are of the opinion that such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In our opinion such illegalities cannot be regularized. We cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years".
5. However, before evicting the unauthorized occupants, the procedure prescribed by law has to be followed. Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 reads as follows:
"39. Whenever it is provided by this Act or any other law for the time being in force that the Deputy Commissioner may or shall evict any person wrongfully in possession of land or where any order to deliver possession of land has been passed against any person under this Act, such eviction shall be made or such order shall be executed, as the case may be, in the following manner, namely -8
(i) by serving a notice on the person or persons in possession requiring them within such time as may appear reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land and.
(ii) if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate officer to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same; and
(iii) if the officer removing any such person is resisted or obstructed by any person, the Deputy Commissioner or the Revenue Officer as the case may be, shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case and, if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction is without any just cause and that such resistance and obstruction still continues, may, without prejudice to any proceedings to which such person may be liable under any law for the time being in force for the punishment of such resistance or obstruction, take or cause to be taken, such steps and use or cause to be used, such force as may, in the opinion of such officer, be reasonably necessary for securing compliance with the order. "
6. If the notice is issued, as submitted by the learned Government Pleader on instructions, it is open to the petitioners to submit their reply thereto. If the notice is not yet issued in compliance with Section 39(i) of the said Act, the 9 same shall be issued to the petitioners. Their objections, if any, shall be considered and the summary inquiry as contemplated under Section 39(iii) of the said Act, shall be held before taking any coercive steps.
7. This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-