1 WP32998/2010
IN THE HiGH comm 09 KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2181' DAY OF OCTOBER 2010.;
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE A.s.PAcHim;€>iJRs:V.: "
WRIT PETKTION No.3299s,.r*2'o1'0
BETWEEN ._ ..
K. Balakrishna Hegde,
Aged about 59 years,
S/o.Koorad1'Mahabaia Hegde,
Residing at Kadoor Villagefiz Post, " '
Via Kokkame, _ {j V _
Udupi Taiuk 81 District. A *_PETI'I'IONER/S
(By Sri. sampaihij.'1-Vati§saia;'V.Ad§;)If1:.._'V V'
AND
1. The State of Viiafnataka,
Represented. by its Seeretary.
_ {Departineim of Revenue,
..... .. 9
I1', _ H i sa"nga1;5r:;V-- 560 001.
The' ispieeijai1:*i*ahasiidar,
A "Brahn;g-_.v;ir.
Ud.j:ipi- Taluk & District.
T Deputy Commissioner,
V «Udupi District,
..Udupi -- 5'76 101.
The Assistant Commissioner.
Revenue Subdivision,
Kundapura ---- 576 201.
VVP32998/2010
2
5. The Revenue Inspector.
Kota,
Udupi Taluk & District. RESPONDENT / S
[By Sri. R. Om Kumar, AGA)
*=!=**=E=
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 2231
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ inthe’ nature’ of
declaration or direction to the effect t1iat”‘-.fthe”‘= notice”
dt.23.09.2010 as per Annexure–a issued’ b_y7.th:e Special
Tahsildar is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and..not.enfo’1’Céa,ble”*E1’1
respect of the landed propertiesjin thepeaceful possessiori and’,
enjoyment of the petitioners 1’I1′(“)I’E?_v fully’-.deseribed .f1n…_the.= said–_*
notice.
This Writ Petition conning oI’1″for’Frel,iminary”Hearing, this
day, the Court made theVf€)lI:Owi1–_1g: . V ~ _
Learrled to take notice for the
respondents,’ ~
it }J€E1I”dV”th.¢VVl€aI’I:’1€d counsel for the petitioner and the
gg p.ettioner claims to be in possession of the land
_ bearing S.5No- of Kadur Village right from the year 1960 and
ggirnprm/Iled the land by putting up the sheds, poultry farms
_et.c.’ -..”I;hat being the fact, the Special Tahsildar — Respondent
N_0,.§2 issued a show notice under Section 192–A of the
)9′
e5
g; “Mac,
3 VVR32998/2010
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (hereinafter called as ‘the
Act’ for short) in No.NCR.CR.O2/10-11 dated 23–09¢2oro.,_gs
per Annexure–A calling upon the petitioner .
explanation as to why action should not be 2.
petitioner for the offence punishable’:
the Act. In pursuance of the show cause noticed’
petitioner has offered his explanatli’oTn’ dated’ ‘L’-/~.1lp_;:1(l–2(.’_lllV;i0 as per
Annexure~I3, on 5–lO~20_lh_:Q”‘~p.as on 6-l0~
2010 as per Annexure–l3H.V_v:’lt’VV of the
petitioner that ‘eicplanations offered as
per Annexureisile dispossessed illegally.
It is un(lVer’lVt’l1eseV has filed this petition
challenging the notice issued by the Special
Tahsildar ~ Elespondent per Annexure~A.
flc”o._unsel the petitioner has also relied upon a
reported in 200 (4) KCCR 2’?47 (Smt.
Lalitha Sa_s-‘tiyn State of Karnataka and others) wherein this
” taking into consideration the provisions of Section i92~A
it 7t)’ln”._tll€_ Act, held that when there is an allegation that the land
helohging to the Government has been encroached, the
petitioners who were contending that no opportunity was givenfl
if;
” mm fifteen’ days.
4 VVR32998/2010
to establish their case and Criminal proceedings before the
concerned Criminai Courts based on the comp1air1tVV_:’oft~t1rie
Tahsiidar, it was held that an opportunity of hearing-_.?”:_1v9__<_5§'
given to the petitioners before initiating the under " is
Section 192–A of the Kamataka LandA:Re7.rerii1e' Herice,,__ itgis
just and proper that Responderit.No.2 has to hold
foilow the principles of naturai u to
the petitioner to offe1";::fip'–~~1?is and then pass
appropriate orders In No.2 is
directed to consideijp.tthe "referred to in Annexures
B, D and E then to pass orders
under petition is accordingly
disposedivof. I V h h
" Learned is permitted to file Memo of appearance
sa/-3
Iudg'