IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.53128/2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI AUSTIN ROACH SON OF LATE SRI P.A.ROACH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS FERNS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ‘TIARA’, NO.682 BINNAMANGALA 1ST STAGE 9TH A MAIN ROAD, INDIRANAGAR OPP. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE BENGALURU – 560 038. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI S.SHIVANANDA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR T.L., ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS NOT TO DISTURB PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY THE PETITIONER OR DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER FROM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would file a memo along with letter dated 6.12.2017 addressed to him by the in- charge Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk and also a survey sketch of the property in dispute. The in-charge Tahsildar Mr.Dinesh, who was present before the Court on 30th November 2017, is present today also and would submit that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, he verified the records and found that the property belonging to petitioner herein, which is shown in the layout plan produced vide Annexure-J, does not include any government land. With reference to a portion of land in the said sketch, which is marked as Sy.No.148 measuring 4000 sq.ft. is identified by him in the sketch produced along with the memo this day wherein he would identify the said portion as ‘HIJKL’ and would accept that the same was sold by the Government in favour of Umrah Developers and same has been sold by Umrah Developers in favour of petitioner on 27.12.2011 and he would state that the said portion, which is marked as ‘HIJKL’ in his sketch, is not a Government land and there was absolutely no reason for issuance of any notice pertaining to said land.
2. Placing said submission on record and accepting the aforesaid documents, this Court would hold that the petitioner is entitled to the writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property forever and that the respondents shall not block his right of ingress and aggress to the layout to be formed by him on land referred to in Annexure-J to this writ petition through the entrance identified in green colour in the said sketch referred to as 4000 sq.ft. in Sy.No.148 and which is identified as ‘HIJKL’ in the sketch produced by the in-charge Tahsildar today.
3. With such observation, this Writ Petition is allowed. While doing so, the notice, which was issued by the previous Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk, who is said to be a person by name Asha Parveen, is hereby quashed for the reason that the same is issued without any basis and further, issuance of that notice was also under highly suspicious circumstance in pasting the same on the gates of the layout and thereafter removing it and subsequently by troubling the petitioner herein/Developers for extraneous consideration as stated by the Counsel for the petitioner.
In the circumstances, while disposing of this writ petition, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to lodge criminal complaint against the said Asha Parveen, previous Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk and pursue the same with the Government for abuse of the office of the Tahsildar with ulterior motive. On filing of such complaint, the Government shall initiate departmental enquiry for the said act. However, the same will not come in the way of petitioner in initiating criminal prosecution by filing complaint before jurisdictional police.
As and when such complaints are filed by the petitioner herein, first respondent/Government to view the same seriously, at least to ensure that such person should not abuse public office of Tahsildar in future and her misconduct in abuse of the office of Tahsildar is properly dealt.
Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-