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 h