Raghavendra S. Chauhan, J.

The petitioners-M/s. Shakthi Hill Resorts Private Limited and Mr. A. Ramesh Arun, are aggrieved by the notice dated 29-7-2015 passed by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk. By the said notice the Tahsildar has directed them to vacate the unauthorised area falling in Survey No. 8, measuring 6.01 acres in Vaddarapalya Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, by 1st of August, 2015, failing which, he has threatened them that property situated in the said survey number belonging to the petitioner shall be taken over by force by the office, at Government cost, and the cost shall be recovered from the petitioners as part of land revenue.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioners claim that they have got certain property situated in Survey No. 183, of Bangalore South Taluk, in the year 1995-96 through authorised sale deeds. Subsequently, after getting the nature of the land changed from agriculture to non-agricultural, after getting the sanctioned plan from the Competent Authority, they constructed a resort for the people at large. According to petitioner 2, out of his own pocket, he has constructed a temple devoting to Lord Shiva. He has invested a huge amount in the construction of the said temple. According to the petitioners, the temple is a popular one where large number of devotees come for their prayers and rituals.

3. Since there was a dispute between the petitioners and the respondent, since the respondents were interfering with the peaceful possession of the said property, the petitioners instituted a suit for permanent injunction, namely, O.S. No. 3595 of 2007 before the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. By judgment and decree dated 12-9-2014, the suit was decreed in the petitioners favour. According to them, ever since the passing of the decree, they have been peacefully enjoying the property.

4. However, suddenly on 29-7-2015, the Tahsildar has issued the impugned notice as mentioned above. According to the petitioners, the said notice was not served upon them personally on 29-7-2015. In fact, it was pasted on the security room at the entrance gate of the club on 31st of July, 2015. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, sine this morning, the respondents have reaching the property belonging to the petitioner; they have seized the property; they have locked up some of the rooms and cottages and are in the process of cutting the road so that neither the petitioner will have access to the property, nor the devotees would be able to attend the temple. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also informs this Court that even while this judgment is being dictated, the main gate of the building has been removed by the respondents. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

5. Mr. V. Lakshminarayan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the dispute with regard to the location of the property, whether it falls within Survey No. 183 or within Survey No. 8 has already been decided by the Civil Court in its judgment and decree dated 12-9-2014. Although the respondents claim that the property falls under Survey No. 8, but in fact the property is located in Survey No. 183.

Secondly, although initially Survey No. 183 had been acquired by the Government, subsequently, in a contempt petition, the Government has de-notified the Survey No. 183.

Thirdly, all the constructions constructed by the petitioner have been constructed after the sanction plan was approved by the concerned authority.

Fourthly, although the impugned notice mentions a large number of documents, but in the operative portion of the notice, it does not show as to how these documents are related to Survey No. 8. Moreover, no reason has been given for the conclusion drawn by the Tahsildar that the petitioners have encroached upon Survey No. 8, except saying that "a Taluk Surveyor, had surveyed the land". But, neither the date when the survey wa