1. Writ petitioners as many as fifteen in number, claiming to be purchasers of some sites, very popularly described as `revenue sites’, but which is essentially a revenue land in bits and pieces, from perhaps a common vendor by name Nanjappa and two others with sale transactions as averred in the petitions being during the period from 22.3.1996 upto 5.5.2004, having become very apprehensive of any irreversible adverse action that may be taken against them in the wake of notice bearing No.LNDCR/684/09-10 dated 23.9.10, issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapura, have approached this court seeking the following reliefs:

“[a] Call for records from the respondents pertaining to impugned Notice dated 23/9/2010.

[b] Issue a writ or order quashing the impugned Notice dated 23/9/2010 bearing No.LNDCR/684/09-10 issued by the respondent [Annexure-A to the writ petition].

[c] Pass any other order including the cost of this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.

2. This court, had on 23.11.2010, passed an interim order while issuing notice to the respondent as under:

“Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondent and secure necessary records by the next date of hearing.

Issue interim stay as prayed for.

Re list on 02.12.2010”

3. The matter having been listed thereafter and not reaching hitherto, is taken up to day in `B’ Group category of cases.

4. The sole respondent is the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk. Time and again, this court has taken the view that a writ petition impleading a Tahsildar is not a writ petition worthy of its name and to be dismissed, only for the reason of non-joinder of necessary parties as a writ is issued only against an authority which is either the State or akin to the State and not that each and every low ranking revenue official like a Tahsildar being treated on par with the State.

5. There are good number of higher revenue officers such as Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Regional Commissioner, Secretary of the Revenue Department and the State Government itself, above the Tahsildar and filing a writ petition impleading a Tahsildar before the High Court invoking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is nothing short of misuse and abuse of the process of this court.

6. Be that as it may, petitioners’ grievance is due to the notice issued to one Nanjappa, son of late Chowdappa. It is not even a notice issued to any one of the petitioners 1 to 15 but in terms of the pleadings, petitioners claim to be persons who have acquired some right, title and interest under not only the said Nanjappa, who in turn appears to have sold some part of the land in Sy.No.69/3 of Dasarahalli Village, K R Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, in favour of one M R Narasaraju, son of Ramaraju as per sale transaction dated 21.7.1995 and said Nanjappa, son of Chowdappa, Muninarayana, son of K Sonnappa and M Nagaraju, son of Munivenkatappa, having formed a residential layout in the remaining extent of 2 acres 5 guntas in Sy. No.69/3 and like development having taken place by the efforts of M R Narasaraju, son of Ramaraju, who also formed a residential layout, consisting of an extent of one acre in Sy. No.69/3 and that petitioners are purchasers of sites from such developers, namely, Nanjappa, Muninarayana, Nagaraju and Narasaraju and the notice being one issued to amongst them i.e., apprising him that in terms of the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North sub-Division, Bangalore in RA No.75/2003-04, the order dated 20.10.2004 has been passed in respect of an extent of 2 acres of land, noticing that it is a `B’ Kharab land and as the said Nanjappa has been active in forming sites in said extent of 2 acres of `B’ Kharab land, the revenue authorities having noticed this illegal occupation of Government land, had called upon the said Nanjappa, to remove the encroachments within seven days from the date