Karnataka High Court
Basagouda Patil S/O Shankar vs Deputy Commissioner on 5 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4283
WP No. 63794 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 63794 OF 2011 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. BASAGOUDA PATIL
S/O. SHANKAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. DHAREPPA PATIL
S/O. DHAREPPA,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. BASAVARAJ PATIL
VN S/O. MURIGEPPA,
BADIGER AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
HIGH 4. ASHOK PATIL
COURT OF S/O. MURIGEPPA
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
BENCH,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
DHARWAD OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. MARUTI GUDODAGI
S/O. DUNDAPPA
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4283
WP No. 63794 of 2011
6. NAGAPPA GUDODAGI
S/O. DUNDAPPA,
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF
SHAHU PARK, RAIBAG,
TQ: RAIBAG.
DIST. BELGAUM.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELGAUM DISTRICT,
BELGAUM.
2. THE TAHASHILDAR,
RAIBAG TALUK,
DIST. BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
-----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ANNEXURE-A DATED 05.05.2011 BEARING NO.NCR:CR-
06/2011-12 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4283
WP No. 63794 of 2011
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking
to quash Annexure-A dated 05.05.2011 issued by the
2nd respondent, as the same is illegal.
2. Heard Sri. Rajashekhar Burji, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for
the respondents. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that,
the petitioners are in occupation of the lands bearing
Survey No.357 measuring 9 Acres 33 Guntas, Survey
No.359, measuring 9 Acres 10 Guntas and Survey
No.360, measuring 7 Acres 37 Guntas, situated in
Raibag, since prior to 1953-54. The revenue
records, from an undisputed point in time show the
names of the ancestors of the petitioners, as persons
in occupation of the lands in question. Ignoring all
those facts, the impugned notice was issued, alleging
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4283
that the petitioners have encroached upon 30 acres
of government land and calling upon them to clear
the said encroachment. On this ground, the
impugned notice does not survive for consideration,
as it lacks any authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that, the petitioners have filed the suit in
O.S.No.286/2006, before the learned Additional Civil
Judge (Jr. Dn.), Raibag, and the said suit came to be
decreed vide judgment dated 14.07.2009, produced
as per Annexure-K. The permanent injunction was
granted in favor of the petitioners against the
government. Therefore, the impugned notice is liable
to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted
that, as per Section 94(3) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 ('the KLR Act', for short), the
competent authority to take steps for clearing any
encroachment or evicting the petitioners from the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4283
lands, is the Deputy Commissioner. However, the
Deputy Commissioner has not issued any notice. On
the other hand, the impugned notice was issued by
the Tahsildar of Raibag, which is bad in law.
Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition by
quashing the impugned notice.
6. Per contra, learned AGA opposing the petition
submitted that, no action as contemplated under
Sections 39 or 94(3) of the KLR Act has been
initiated against the petitioners, by the competent
authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner. The
submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is premature in nature. The land in
question admittedly belongs to the State
Government. However, in some revenue records,
the names of the petitioners, and their predecessors
in title appeared without any basis. Hence, a show-
cause notice was issued in order to comply with the
principles of natural justice, calling upon the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4283
petitioners to vacate the premises. In the impugned
notice, there is reference to the order dated
22.09.2008, passed in the case of Lalitha Sastry
Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.1, wherein, the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, referring to the
circular issued by the State Government,
categorically held that, in order to meet the
principles of natural justice, the circular provides for
the issuance of a show-cause notice. Therefore, in
consonance with the said order, the show-cause
notice came to be issued by the Tahsildar, providing
an opportunity for the petitioners to put forth their
contentions regarding their possession of the
property. There is absolutely no reason for the
petitioners to approach this Court challenging the
said notice instead of showing cause for the same.
Therefore, the writ petition lacks merits, and prays
for dismissal of the petition.
W.P.Nos.3969 and 9198 of 2007
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4283
7. Heard Sri.Rajashekhar Burji, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for
respondents No.1 and 2. Perused the materials on
record.
8. On perusal of the materials, the revenue records
pertaining to the disputed land shows the name of
the government in column No.9. However, in column
No.12, the names of the private parties, who are said
to be the predecessors in title of the petitioners,
appeared, as they are the cultivators of the land.
Now it is the contention of the respondents that the
petitioners are the encroachers of the government
land. This claim is to be proved in an inquiry that is
to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, as
provided under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
9. Admittedly, the petitioners filed a suit in
O.S.286/2006, before the learned Additional Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.), Raibag, seeking grant of permanent
injunction against the Range Forest Officer, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4283
Tahsildar of Raibag, and the State of Karnataka
represented by the Deputy Commissioner. The said
suit came to be decreed vide the judgment dated
14.07.2009. It is stated that the defendants are
permanently restrained from evicting the plaintiffs
from the suit lands without due process of law.
Therefore, it is clear that the decree passed in favor
of the petitioners is not an absolute decree granting
permanent injunction, but rather it is a decree
restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiffs
from the suit lands without following due process of
law. Therefore, the petitioners cannot find fault with
the issuance of the show-cause notice, which is
impugned in this case.
10. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that, as per Sections 39 and 94(3) of
the KLR Act, it is the Deputy Commissioner, who is
required to initiate proceedings for evicting the
petitioners. There cannot be any dispute with regard
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4283
to the same. The Deputy Commissioner, being the
competent authority, may initiate action against the
petitioners if he desires to do so. It is important to
note that, neither under Section 39 nor under
Section 94 of the KLR Act, issuance of a show-cause
notice is contemplated. The impugned notice itself
suggests that it was issued based on the
observations made by the coordinate bench of this
Court in Lalitha Sastry's case (supra), wherein
reference is made to a circular issued by the
government on 08.09.2008, to provide an
opportunity to persons, who are in occupation of
government land, to voluntarily give up such
possession. The same cannot be termed as a
proceeding either under Section 39 or under Section
94(3) of the KLR Act. It is only a notice issued to the
petitioners to show cause as to why they should not
be evicted from the land in question. If the
petitioners are having any justifiable cause, they
could have showed the cause by filing their
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4283
objections. It is thereafter left to the competent
authority referred to under the KLR Act, to initiate
action in accordance with law. But at no stretch of
the imagination it could be said that the impugned
notice issued by the Tahsildar is bad in law.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petition lacks
merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.G.UMA)
JUDGE
gab
CT:ANB
