1. Subject matter of these writ petitions are notices dated 10.3.2011 issued by the 5th respondent-Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, as per Annexures A to K, which are notices purporting to be issued under the provisions of Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) to be precise under 94(3) and Section 39 of the Act.

2. Writ petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following prayer:-

“a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the Order bearing Nos.NCR/CR/449/10-11 dated 10.3.2011 which are produced as Annexures A to K notice issued by 5th respondent to the above writ petition;

b. a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent authorities from interfering with the peaceful possession accused enjoyment of the scheduled immovable properties described in the schedule given hereunder.”

with the pleading that petitioners are all persons who are members of the 1st petitioner-Society, Food Corporation of India Employees Housing Co.op. Society Limited; that the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) a statutory authority under the Bangalore

Development Authority Act, 1976, had allotted an extent of 4 acres of land in favour of the 1st petitioner-Society, but on the other hand, had executed sale deeds to a large extent viz., 4 acres 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.31/2 of Devatyere Ramanagara Village, Bangalore South Taluk; that thereafter the Society has allotted sites to individual members and the individual members have put up construction of residential units from the years 1988 onwards and they have all been residing there without any disturbance hitherto, are now slapped with notices as per Annexures A to K all dated 10.3.2011 under which it is not only proposed to take action for removing them from the encroached land on the premise that even while the petitioners purporting to have constructed houses within allotted land in favour of the 1st petitioner-Society have nevertheless encroached upon 25.6 guntas of land in Sy.No.32 which is a government tank bed area; that it is therefore, required to remove them from such encroachment by taking action under the provisions quoted and also proposed notices issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, has threatened for launching prosecution under Section 192(A) of the Act; that a wholesale threatening notices of this kind with dire consequences as indicated in the very notices has caused great anxiety and anguish to the petitioners and it is under such circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of notices at Annexures A to K and for consequential relief.

3. Notices had been issued to the respondents and respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6, State and its Officials in the Revenue Department are represented by Sri. Chittappa, learned Special Government Advocate. Though the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) figures as respondents 3 and 4, it is submitted at the bar that the impugned notices are in no way connected with the action or proceedings of the BBMP and therefore they are only formal parties.

4. A very detailed statement of objections have been filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6. It is indicated inter alia that the notices as indicated are only in respect of the encroachment of land located in Sy.No.32 and therefore, action is warranted, as it is the duty of the revenue officials to remove such people from encroachment on any community lands and such action is also inevitable on the part of the State Government in view of the directions issued in W.P.No.817/2008 and connected matters.

5. Mr. Chittappa, learned Special Government Advocate submits that notices are quite valid within the provisions of law; that a notice of this nature is quite possible even as per judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of KEMPANNAGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA dated 24.2.1982 reported in 1982 (2) KLJ SN 8 and therefore, submits that no interference is warranted by