Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.30915/2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S RAFFLES RESIDENCY PVT. LTD., A COOMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, OFFICE AT NO.54, SECOND FLOOR ‘THE PLANET’ WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD BANGALORE – 560 066 REPRESETNED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. PRANNOY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O SRI. BINOY KUMAR SINHA.
(BY SRI. D. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATE BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2 . THE TAHSILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK HOKOTE – 562 114.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSH, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE NOTICE ISSUED BY R-2 DATED:13.07.2018 VIDE ANNEX-A WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS CALLED UPON TO VACATE THE ALLEGED ENCROACHMENT OF 0.35 GUNTAS IN SY. NO.250 OF SAMATHENAHALLI VILLAGE ON 19.07.2018.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner has called in question notice dated 13.07.2018 issued by second respondent whereunder, second respondent has directed petitioner to vacate the encroached land to an extent of 35 guntas in Sy.No.250 of Samethanahalli, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, failing which petitioner has been intimated that criminal proceedings would be launched under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
2. Having heard Sri D.Prabhakar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents-1 and 2 and on perusal of records it would disclose that petitioner had approached this court when similar notice had been issued in W.P.Nos.44615-616/2016 & 46076-77/2016 and by order dated 25.08.2016 this court had directed second respondent herein to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. It is thereafter notice dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure- M) came to be issued to petitioner calling upon him to vacate the encroached portion of 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.250. Petitioner submitted his reply on 29.05.2018 (Annexure-N) to second respondent. However, there seems to be no adjudication of said notice dated 25.05.2018 by second respondent by considering the reply dated 29.05.2018 submitted by petitioner. Yet, under the guise of final notice dated 13.07.2018 (Annexure-A), second respondent has arrived at a conclusion that there is encroachment of land by petitioner to an extent of 35 guntas in Sy.No.250 which portion of land is said to be reserved for water channel and path way.
3. Though Sri D Prabhakar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner would draw the attention of the court to the report of Deputy Tahsildar dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure-J) as well as report of the Taluka Surveyor (Annexure-K), said reports in its entirety would not come to the rescue of petitioner for the simple reason, in the report of the Deputy Tahsildar dated 20.01.2017 insofar as Sy.No.250 is concerned, it is clearly stated therein that in the portion marked as ‘halla’, petitioner has established a park and has also put up/established rain water harvesting sump. In the words of Deputy Tahsildar, it reads:
“¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ£ÀºÀ½î XXXX GzÀâªÀªÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸À.£ÀA 250gÀ°è ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀªÁV ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ ºÀ¼Àî ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀĪÀgÀÄ GzÁå£ÀªÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ¼É PÉÆ¬Ä®Ä (¸ÀA¥ï) ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ EzÀÄ MvÀÄÛªÀj ¥ÀæzÉñÀªÁVzÀÄÝ EzÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”
4. Thus, prima-facie, it would disclose that there is encroachment of 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.250 by the petitioner. It is because of this precise reason, earlier show cause notice came to be issued on 25.05.2018 (Annexure-M) and a reply was submitted to the same by petitioner on 29.05.2018 (Annexure-N). Even before adjudicating said show cause notice, impugned final notice dated 13.07.2018 (Annexure-A) has been issued. In the light of direction having been issued by this court in the earlier round of litigation i.e., on 25.08.2016 in W.P.Nos.44615- 616/2016 & 46076-77/2016 by directing the second respondent to adjudicate said notice and fact having remained that show cause notice dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure-M) having not been adjudicated, it would suffice to direct second respondent to consider the reply submitted by petitioner and pass orders on the said reply dated 29.05.2018 (Annexure-N) expeditiously within a time frame.
5. However, it is made clear that impugned show cause notice/order is not interfered with though under the guise of notice, an order having been passed, inasmuch as, against show cause notice, no writ court would not interfere at that stage, for which proposition, judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SIEMENS LTD. vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS reported in (2006)12 SCC 33 can be looked up. However, it would suffice to direct the second respondent to treat impugned notice as show cause notice for which petitioner would be entitled to file or submit his reply if so advised.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
Next >