Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 1182
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S.Kamal, J.
C.N. Cafe Swarnabhoomi – Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 29281 of 2023 (KLR-RES)
Decided On : 28-12-2023
Ramachandra Halinathota, Advocate, Mohammed Jaffer Shah, Advocate
The necessity of providing a fair hearing and due process before making administrative decisions affecting individuals' rights under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
Headnote:
ENCROACHMENT - KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT - The court emphasized the necessity for the Tahsildar to exercise statutory powers judiciously and provide the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard before ordering the removal of alleged encroachments, as mandated by Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Tahsildar directing the removal of alleged encroachments, claiming that the order was made without providing an opportunity to be heard.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tahsildar failed to provide any evidence of notice or opportunity given to the petitioner, indicating a lack of due process.
Issues: Whether the Tahsildar acted in accordance with the law by not providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before issuing the removal order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tahsildar is required to exercise authority judiciously and must afford sufficient opportunity to the parties involved, as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar for reconsideration, ensuring the petitioner is given a chance to present their case.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Sri. Ramchandra Halinathota, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Mohammed Jaffer Shah, learned AGA for the respondents.
2. Case of the petitioner is that impugned order produced at Annexure-R dtd. 7/6/2023 has been passed by the respondent-Tahsildar directing removal of alleged encroachment without even affording opportunity to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention to the order sheet produced at Annexure-S, wherein on 14/3/2023 it is noted as "Case called encroacher absent". Again on 7/6/2023 it is noted as "Case order pronounced in open Court hall". Except these two entries there is nothing reflected in the daily order sheet. Clearly indicating that there is no order or finding with regard to the service of notice to the petitioner in the proceeding initiated under Sec. 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
4. Needless to state, the respondent-Tahsildar who is vested with the statutory powers is required to exercise his authority judiciously and strictly in accordance with law affording sufficient opportunity in the case. As seen at Annexure-S no such exercise of power is made. In that view of the matter, petitioner has made out a case of he having been deprived of opportunity of being heard.
5. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) Petition is allowed.
b) Impugned Order produced at Annexure-R dtd. 7/6/2023 is set-aside.
c) Matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2-Tahsildar directing him to consider the matter afresh.
d) Since the petitioner is aware of the proceeding, he shall appear before the respondent No.2-Tahsildar on 22/1/2024 without further notice who shall after affording opportunity to the petitioner pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
e) It is made clear no precipitative action shall be taken till necessary orders are passed by the respondent-Tahsildar as directed hereinabove.
