Karnataka High Court
Rajendra S/O Mahadev Ayakar vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2024
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4650
WP No. 111237 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.111237 OF 2015 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAJENDRA S/O. MAHADEV AYAKAR,
AGED 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ELAVA, AMBELI, PO: GANESHGUDI,
TQ: JOIDA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY: PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2. TAHASILDAR JOIDA,
TQ: JOIDA,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, AGA)
BHARATHI THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
HM
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING NOTICE/ORDER DATED 28-09-
Date: 2024.03.05
14:56:03 +0530
2015 BEARING NO.Kra.Thaka/Viva/ 2015-16 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4650
WP No. 111237 of 2015
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed seeking for following
reliefs.
a) Quashing notice/order dated 28.09.2015 bearing
No.Kra.Thaka/Viva/ /2015-16 issued by
Respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-A.
b) Issue such other direction as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the interest of justice.
2. Sri Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for
petitioner submitted that petitioner had constructed a
house in housing site granted under Aashraya scheme in
Sy.no.251 of Elava village, Tq: Joida. It was submitted
that same was under grant order dated 03.11.2000 and
agreement dated 17.05.2001 as per Annexures-B and C. It
was submitted that said house was also assigned house
number and assessed for tax. It was submitted that
petitioner had also sought for grant of remaining land in
Sy.no.251 in year 1999 but said application was rejected
in year 2003 on ground that said property was already
granted to one Ullas Talekar. It was submitted that said
rejection was under challenge by petitioner before
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4650
appropriate authority. Such being case, when said Ullas
Talekar sought to interfere, petitioner had filed
O.S.no.56/2012 before learned Civil Judge at Dandeli for
mandatory injunction not to grant permission for
alienation of Sy.no.251 against defendants. Said suit was
dismissed by judgment and decree dated 11.09.2015.
3. On no other premise than dismissal of said suit,
respondent no.2-Tahasildar, Joida had issued impugned
notice dated 28.09.2015 in nature of an order calling upon
petitioner to vacate house failing which, action for
recovery of possession would be taken as per law within a
period of seven days. Assailing same, present petition was
filed.
4. It was submitted that impugned notice was
untenable on preliminary ground that respondent no.2-
Tahasildar had erroneously assumed nature of relief
sought in suit and consequence of dismissed. It was also
contended that notice did not mention authority under
which it was issued nor specific provision which was
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4650
alleged to be violated, calling upon petitioner to show-
cause. Therefore, show-cause notice was liable to be
quashed on ground of being vague. On above grounds,
learned counsel for petitioner sought for allowing writ
petition.
5. On other hand, Sri M.M.Khannur, learned
Additional Government Advocate oppose petition. It was
submitted that writ petition was filed challenging a mere
show-cause notice which would not be tenable.
6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and
perused writ petition records.
7. From above, though Annexure-A, challenged by
petitioner is termed as a notice, it is more in nature of an
order since it directs petitioner to vacate house premises
within seven days. It is seen that 'notice' does not specify
authority or provision in exercise of which it was issued
nor specify provision which was violated by petitioner.
Therefore, impugned notice would not sustain. Hence, I
pass following:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4650
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) Impugned notice dated 28.09.2015 at
Annexure-A issued by respondent no.2 is
quashed. Liberty is reserved to respondent to
issue fresh notice in accordance with law taking
note of observations made above.
iii) All contentions kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM
