IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.14766/2019 (LB-RES) Between:
Mr. Valerian D’ Souza, S/o Anthony D’ Souza, Aged about 55 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/at Bogody House, Panemangalore Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District-574211. ... Petitioner (By Sri Prasanna V.R, Advocate) And:
1. The Chief Officer, The Town Municipality, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada District-574211.
2. The Assistant Director of Land Records cum Tahsildar, Department of Revenue, Land Records and Survey, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District-574219.
3. The Surveyor, Department of Revenue, Land Records and Survey, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District-574219.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore-575001.
5. Mr. P. Ismail, S/o Haji P.K. Mohammad, Age: Major, Mareesh Residency, Monkey Stand, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District-575002. ... Respondents (By Sri Sudhakar Pai, Advocate for R1, Sri M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R2-R4, Sri Ravishankar Shastry.G, Advocate for R5) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 04.02.2019 in the form of a notice issued by the respondent No.1 Chief Officer, Town Municipality, Bantwal true copy of which is produced at Annexure-A and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 0.37 acre in survey No.54/1A1 of Panemangaluru Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, which falls within the jurisdiction of Bantwal Town Municipality.
2. The petitioner states that respondent No.5, who is the owner of property in survey No.51/1A1 had contended that though the licence was granted to put up construction to the petitioner in survey No.54/1A1, he was in fact putting up construction in survey No.51/1A1. Respondent No.1 taking note of the said complaint had directed the Assistant Director of land Records to enquire into the matter and in to the allegations that though licence was granted to put up construction with respect to survey No.54/1A1, construction was being put up by the petitioner in survey No.51/1A1. Consequent to such communication to the Survey Authorities, it is stated that the notices were issued and the report at Annexure-N has been submitted by the Survey Authorities to the Municipal Council, Town Municipality Bantwal. A copy of the said survey report at Annexures–N and N1 are stated to have been submitted to the Municipal Authority.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no notice has been issued to him prior to conducting of survey and consequent preparation of report. It is stated that last of the said notice said to have been sent to the petitioner has been returned with postal shara ‘unclaimed’. Taking note of the gravity of consequences that would visit the petitioner consequent to the survey report and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the fresh directions be issued to respondent No.2 to re-do the survey as required pursuant to the request at Annexure – F1. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to entrust the work of survey to any surveyor other than surveyor was entrusted to furnish the report at Annexure–N. The petitioner and respondent No.5 to be present before respondent No.2 on 18.05.2019 at 11.00AM. On appearance of the parties respondent No.2 is to fix a date and issue an appropriate direction to the surveyor concerned to carry out the survey work as required.
4. In light of the above, the report at Annexure–N and sketch at Annexure–N1 are set aside without expressing any opinion on the contents of the said documents. Accordingly, the consequential notice issued at Annexure–A is set aside.
5. Consequent upon fresh survey and report being submitted to respondent No.1, Respondent No.1 is at liberty to issue an appropriate notice as may be permissible in law if necessary and required by invoking power under Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the observations made above.
Sri Sudhakara, learned counsel is permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 within a week.
The proceedings relating to survey ought to be concluded expeditiously not later than a period of two months from the date of parties appear before respondent No.2.
Sd/- JUDGE ssb/KA