Karnataka High Court
Sri C Sreenivasamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2021
Author: R. Nataraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION No.18446/2021(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.C.SREENIVASAMURTHY,
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O NO.60/4,ANJANADRI ROYALNEST,
3RD MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS ROAD,
KSRTC LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLAI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 006.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.K.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD.BY IT SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE TAHASILDAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR FOR
LAND RECORDS,
BENGALURU-560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY Sri:R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA, FOR RESPONDENTS)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 23.02.2021 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 TAHASILDAR AT ANNEXURE-G AND
SUBSEQUENT SURVEY SKETCH DATED 16.02.2021, REPORT
OF THE REVENUE INSPECTOR RECEIVED ON 04.02.2021, AS
PER ANNEXURE-F1 AND F3 RESPECTIVELY AND ALL OTHER
PROCEEDINGS RELATING THERETO, IN RESPECT OF THE
SURVEY NO.98 MEASURING 1 ACRE 20 GUNTAS OF 1 ACRE 6
GUNTAS PLUS 14 GUNTAS OF UTTARAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, AS PER
SCHEDULE, SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONERS
LAND AT SCHEDULE, AS ILLEGAL, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR 'PRELIMINAY HEARING'
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated
23-02-2021 issued by respondent No.2(Annexure-G) and the
survey sketch dated 16-02-2021 and also the report of the
Revenue Inspector dated 04-02-2021(Annexures-F1 & F3) in
respect of the land bearing Sy.No.98 of Uttarahalli village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The petitioner has
also sought for writ in the nature of mandamus to direct
respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representations dated
12-03-2020 (Annexures- E,E2 to E4)respectively for fixation of
correct boundaries.
2. A Public Interest Litigation was filed before this
Court in writ petition No.13949/2020 to evict encroachers of
the Government land in Sy.No.111 of Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk. During the pendency of the writ
petition, on the directions of this Court, a survey was
conducted on 16-02-2021 based on the report of the Revenue
Inspector dated 04-02-2021 in terms of which, it was alleged
that the petitioner had encroached into the land bearing
Sy.No.111. Consequent thereto, a notice was issued on
23-02-2021 calling upon the petitioner, to show cause as to
why he should not be evicted from the land in Sy.No.111 of
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The petitioner filed
an application in Writ Petition No.13949/2020 to be
impleaded. The notice dated 23-02-2021 was challenged by
the petitioner before this Court in writ petition
No.12697/2021. The petitioner contended in the said writ
petition that the survey dated 16-02-2021 was without notice
to him. This Court took note of the aforesaid contention and
disposed off Writ Petition No.12697/2021 and permitted the
petitioner to file necessary application in writ petition
No.13949/2020. Consequent thereto, the petitioner filed an
application before the Division Bench of this Court. The
Division Bench in terms of the order dated 15-07-2021
permitted the petitioner to challenge the survey proceedings
dated 23-02-2021 in accordance with law. Thereafter the
present writ petition is filed challenging the survey which
culminated in the survey sketch dated 23-02-2021.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily
contended that the survey proceedings were initiated without
notice to him and therefore the entire proceeding is vitiated.
He submitted that since the impugned survey proceedings are
initiated without notice to him, the alternate remedy of an
appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records under
Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964 need not
be resorted to. In this regard he relied upon the Judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of INCOME-TAX
AND OTHERS VS CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL [(2013) 357
ITR 357 (SC)].
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate
submitted that the Division Bench of this Court had permitted
the petitioner to challenge the survey proceedings in
accordance with law which meant that the petitioner had to
approach the appellate authority as provided under Section 49
of the Act,1964 and therefore this writ petition is ill-conceived.
He submitted that the petitioner has filed his objections to the
notice dated 23-02-2021 and that an order of eviction is
passed on 15-03-2021.
5. The learned Government Pleader was unable to
point out any document, indicating that the petitioner was
notified of the survey proceedings before demarcating the
limits of Sy.No.111 of Uttarahalli village. He also could not
point out any material to indicate that the petitioner was heard
before terming the petitioner as an "encroacher in land
bearing Sy.No.111". In that view of the matter, the alternate
remedy of appeal before the D.D.L.R serves no useful purpose.
Consequently, the survey proceedings initiated by respondent
No.3 which culminated in the survey sketch dated 16-02-2021
is liable to be quashed, in so far as the petitioner is
concerned. Consequently, the impugned notice dated
23-02-2021 issued by respondent No.2 also deserves to be set
at naught. Hence, the following:-
ORDER
1) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice
dated 23-02-2021 issued by respondent No.2
(Annexure-G) and the survey sketch dated
16-02-2021 are quashed in so far as petitioner is
concerned.
2) It is open for respondent No.3 to conduct a fresh
survey and fix the limits of Survey No.111 within a
period of one month from the date of certified
copy of this order after hearing the petitioner.
3) Respondent No.3 shall conduct the survey on 10th
November, 2021 and the petitioner is directed to
be present at the spot at 11.00 a.m. on the said
date.
It is made clear that, if the petitioner fails to avail this
opportunity, he shall not be entitled to any further notice.
Sd/-
JUDGE
rsk/-
