1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 05.07.2016 passed by respondent No.3 Tahsildar, Davangere. By the said order, the Tahsildar, in exercise of powers under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’), has directed that the construction made by petitioner herein of a building in the lands bearing R.S.No.58 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas and R.S.No.59/P2P1 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas situated in Avaragere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Davangere Taluk, shall be demolished after taking necessary approval from the Deputy Commissioner, Davangere District. It is further directed that expenses to be incurred for removal of the structure shall be recovered from the petitioner after obtaining necessary permission from the Deputy Commissioner, Davangere. The Tahsildar has also directed both parties to maintain statusquo regarding the property in question till the dispute with regard to their title and interest over the property in question was decided by the Civil Court.

2. Facts, as narrated in the memorandum of writ petition, disclose that petitioner claims to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. He has constructed a building in a portion of agricultural lands allegedly as a farm house. The Tahsildar issued notice dated 17.08.2015 to the petitioner alleging that he had violated the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Act because construction put up by him was not of a farm house, but of a huge building for purposes other than agriculture.

3. An order had been passed on 01.09.2015 in similar terms as has been done now under the impugned order. The same was challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.41416/2015 & 41784/2015. This Court disposed of the said writ petitions on 01.10.2015 observing that petitioner had to prefer an appeal under Section 49 of the Act. W.A.Nos.4356/2015 & 4524/2015 were filed against the same. The Division Bench of this Court set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for consideration afresh and directed the parties to maintain statusquo with regard to change in the nature and character of the property in dispute till the matter was considered by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar was directed not to prevent the petitioner from entering into the farm house already constructed on the land. This is how the Tahsidlar has considered the matter afresh and has passed the impugned order.

4. As per the findings recorded by the Tahsildar, although petitioner had asserted before him that construction put up in the land in question was that of a farm house, report secured by the Tahsidlar from different authorities such as the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture disclosed that size of the construction was 150 X 50 sq.mtrs. and the approximate cost of construction was around rupees twenty two lakhs and therefore, such a building could not have been constructed in the agricultural land and hence, it had to be regarded as illegal construction put up without getting the land converted as required under Section 95 of the Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Tahsildar obtained report from the Public Works Department and Department of Agriculture behind the back of the petitioner and none of the reports relied upon were furnished to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. He further points out that merely because construction was relatively huge, it could not be contended that it ceased to be a farm house.

6. It is contended that as long as the construction put up is for the purpose of the farmer to enable him to carry on his agricultural activities in the farm land, no matter whether it is a smaller construction or bigger one, it does not lose the characteristic feature of a farm house.

7. Sri S.V.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for impleading applicant in I.A.1/2016 submits that petit