Naveen Chandra vs The State Of Karantaka on 12 October, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPAEN.AS:'V1    O *

BETWEEN:

'A 131A

NAVEEN CHANDRA

S/O SRIDHAR POQJARI  if

DATED THIS THE 12" DAY OF OCTOBER 2009,-.__

WRIT PETITION NO. 2SS71»29S7'5/200:3   E

AGED ABOUT 38'YEARS_  1. 

YODANANDA   _ 
S /O SRIDHAR PGOJARI:

AGED A":_3O;:tfI 5.5     A V

B,3+LA_RA1i1?I1*-:;.._'.  ' ._ '
W/O YOOANANDA, '-

AGED ABQIJT50' ;

 O

, S/O SRIDHAR POOJARJ
~  AGED AEGUf1f 43 YEARS

  M_O~HA3V1MAO MUJEEB
_- * S_/'Q  USMAN
-  AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

ALL  R/AT KUVETHYAR HOUSE

J

.'INDABETTU VILLAGE BANGADY POST



BELTHANAGADI TALUK

DAKSHINA KANNADA-- 574 214  PETITIONERS

[BY SRI VINOD KUMAR AND SRI KIRAN KUMAR, ADVs);j\

AND:

1

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE;
M.S. BUILDING 
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI. _
BANGALORE ' 
R/P BY ITS SECRETARY "

THE DEPUTY COI¢I4MISS:O'I§IERi.._ 
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIS_TR1CT'--   'I 
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY .COMM.1SS;I0_NER
PANDESHVI/%.RA, IAANSALORE " '
THE    ..  . 
OFFICE OLRTHE T_  ASILDARI 
BFELTHAINAGADI TALIJK  
DAKSI-II1'£iA I:ANIx:ADA DIST  RESPONDENTS
(BY SR1. R 

':'i""i'--I ESE v§IRIT'PETITIOI\IsAee FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

 I_&  OF THE C'ONSTI'}'U'1'ION OF INDIA. WITH A PRAYER
  'QUASII 'THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R3. DTD 7.10.09,
 PR'GDUCED~A'1".ANNEX~A.

A "-u'.'T*-_'~5f .. WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

 HEARING. THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

3

as»
'n



ORDER

Sri R.Kurnar, learned Government Advocate to

accept notice and file memo of appearance

period of four weeks from today.

2. The petitioners are before

for issue of writ of certiorari dated
7 . 10.2009 which is irrlp_’ugne_dwa_ti

3. The that petitioners
No.1 to occupation and
cultivation rnade applications seeking
regularisation applications are yet to be

considered. Itdisvlalso contended that the lands of the

other two petitioners are also included in the notice and

had been provided to them before

directing “the eviction from the land in question. The

A petitioners also refer to an earlier proceedings when an

i

gu-

0%

endorsement was issued without proper opportunity

and the same had been challenged by the third

petitioner before the Assistant Cornrnissioner’.

‘7’

Assistant Commissioner by order dated

set aside the endorsement. /vThe”‘gri’eva;nc’e

petitioner is, despite the same the”-land the

petitioner is also indicated in ‘V”thV:e»impugned fnoticedddated 0

7.102009 and the to the other
petitioners. It is even though
the same ;.a”:’;noti:cei,”thsfoperative portion
would anudorder has been passed
directing ___’to_”‘d\raeate from the land in
question eviction is also indicated.

Hence it is conterrcled that the action is without

.0 the principles of natural justice and it is

that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to

issue SV'”i!..’1C.1″1″ order.

i

‘1:

4. The learned Government Advocate would

indicate that though the operative portion ind1c’ates ___so,

the petitioner had been provided opportunity arid

they have not vacated, the present 0′

issued. With regard to the c1air’nMn1ade..&regéirdingvthe’-.’

application being filed seeking’, r’egu1aris_ation. 00

ieamed Government Advocatavvould it the
veracity of such statern_ent«”dandriythe-._ppende’ncy of the

applications would have to as such, at

this stage, no”r£3i’i,e3i’ can biii petitioners.

ES’. the rival contentions, it is to
be statedthat true that the veracity of the

pendency of theptatpplications for regularisation and the

the same is to be verified by the

‘However, the notice dated 7.10.2009 does

notfindicate that the action has been initiated taking

note ofsuch disposal and after providing opportunity to

3!

‘flu
5!

the petitioners. Though the said order is classified as

notice, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsetfor

the petitioner, it indicates that an order of evicti.onh.”ha’s’4

been passed. Hence, at this stage, if the V’

rival contentions is adverted to,Cthe”sa_me vaffectfi

the parties and even otherwise it is not desirable s’ine_e’~_

the respondents themselves not yet into a
finding of fact with of’ possession of
the petitioners after

6. pppp H operative portion of the
as the directing the
petitiontersjgt the lands in question stands

quashed for the_g’p’res’ent with a direction that the order

will be treated as a show cause notice

t’he”_”_v»pe~t.itioners would have the opportunity of

“forth their contention before the third

2 .. respondent including the contention with regard to the

J

gon-

44′