Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

M/S Sicgil India Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|26 March, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26H DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION Nos.13431 OF 2019 AND 13947 OF 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
M/s SICGIL India Limited, Sy. No.65/1,2, Kattamanallur Village Cross Virgonagar Post, Bengaluru-560 049 Rep. by its authorized Signatory Sri Shankar Subramanian ... Petitioner (By Sri.Sateesh M.Doddamani, Adv.) AND 1. The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary Revenue Department M.S.Building Bengaluru-560 001 2. The Deputy Commissioner D.C.Office Building Revenue Complex, K.G.Road Bengaluru-560 009 3. The Joint Director of Land Records Department of Survey Settlement & Land Records, Revenue Building, K.R.Circle Bengaluru-560 001 4. The Taluk Surveyor Bengaluru East Taluk Bengaluru-560 067 ... Respondents (By Sri.S.S.Budihal, HCGP) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the undated re-survey sketch in respect of the property bearing sy.no.65/1 & 65/2 situated at Katamanallur Village, Virgonagar Post, Hoskote Taluk, Prepared by the R-4 vide Annexure-F and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Learned HCGP takes notice for respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, matter is heard finally.
3. Petitioner herein is contending that it has purchased 3 acres 24 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.65/1 and 65/2 of Kattamanallur Village, Virgonagar Post, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru District under three separate sale deeds executed in their favour between 1996 and 1997. It is stated that they are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties and the same are enclosed with compound.
4. When the matter stood thus, petitioner states that a notice was issued regarding alleged encroachment by it into the road situated on northern side of the property owned by them. Though notice was issued to them on 28.01.2019 in indicating that the property of the petitioner could be subjected to survey, the same is not conducted on that day according to the petitioner. Subsequently, they have come to know that certain records as seen at Annexure ‘F’ is prepared by the Taluka Surveyor of Bengaluru East Taluk indicating that there is encroachment by the petitioner into the road situated on its northern side to an extent of little more than ½ gunta and less than ¾ guntas, which is sought to be removed by demolishing the compound wall.
5. The grievance of the petitioner in these writ petitions is that when earlier notice was given to it regarding alleged survey, nobody came and conducted any survey near the property of the petitioner. It is thereafter Annexure ‘F’ which is prepared behind its back on the basis of an application given by one Sri Ram Rao, who according to the petitioner is a non-existing person. It is in this background, it is stated that the respondents may be directed to hold fresh survey in the presence of petitioner at its cost and in the event, if the survey department is capable of demonstrating any encroachment by the petitioner, the same would be set-right by it voluntarily.
6. Accepting the said submission and placing the same on record, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to conduct resurvey of the said property belonging to petitioners within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the said resurvey shall be conducted after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as its counsel and thereafter, the survey shall be conducted in their presence. It is made clear that the said exercise shall be complied within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also made clear that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to intimate the amount which is required to be deposited by the petitioner for the said resurvey to be conducted by it. Till such time, it is made clear that no action shall be taken for removal of alleged encroachment pursuant to Annexure ‘F’ dated 23.02.2019.
Sd/- JUDGE brn
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M/S Sicgil India Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
26 March, 2019
Judges
  • S N Satyanarayana