Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 872
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
Smt. Jayashree W/o Sangram Julai - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No.200792 of 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
Decided on : 08-05-2025
For the Appellant :SRI. K. M. GHATE, SRI. VIVEKANAND, ADVOCATES
For the Respondent:SMT. MAYA T.R., SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE
The Deputy Commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction to handle encroachment disputes under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and failure to provide notice constitutes a violation of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 103 - Writ petition for quashing an order passed by the Tahsildar regarding alleged encroachment on a nala - The impugned order was found to violate principles of natural justice due to lack of notice and jurisdiction. (Paras 6, 10, 12)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Jurisdictional authority - The Deputy Commissioner has the jurisdiction to decide land disputes under Section 103. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the Tahsildar's order that followed a request by respondents regarding an alleged encroachment on a nala, claiming the decision lacked due process.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was set aside for being without jurisdiction and violating natural justice, allowing the respondents to seek remedy through the appropriate authority.
Issues: The primary issues were the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar and the absence of notice to the affected parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Tahsildar acted beyond his authority, asserting that only the Deputy Commissioner could address the encroachment issue after a proper inquiry.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding the disputed order (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments from both parties about jurisdiction and notice (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's examination of the case and principles of natural justice (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. legal interpretation of section 103 of the act (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final judgment and directions (Para 13) |
ORDER :
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:
a) Issue writ of certiorari/order/direction quashing the memo/order issued by 4th respondent- Tahsildar in File No.REVENUE/LND/CR-144/2024- 25 Dated 07.01.2025 vide Annexure-K to the writ petition.
b) Issue any order/direction as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court directing the respondents to pay the cost of the present writ petition to the petitioners.
2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
(a) The respondent Nos.8 and 10 to 15 submitted an application to the respondent No.4 with a request to form a pathway from the Eastern side boundary of the petitioners land where nala flows from South-
North direction and contended that the petitioner No.4 has closed the said pathway about six years ago.
(b) The respondent No.4 issued a memo to the Taluka Surveyor, Revenue Inspector, Bagadal, directing them to conduct a joint survey and submit a report about existence of nala and its encroachment, in case encroachment is there.
(c) The Taluka Surveyor submitted a report to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar based on the report submitted by the Taluka Surveyor, passed the impugned order directing the Administrative Officer to remove the encroachment. The petitioners aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.01.2025, vide Annexure-K, filed this writ petition.
3. The contesting respondents filed the statement of objections, contending that there is an encroachment on the nala and requested the respondent No.4 to remove the encroachment and the respondent No.4 has passed the impugned order in accordance with law. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
4. The petitioners filed rejoinder denying the statement of objections. Hence, prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.8 and 10 to 15 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 7.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.4 before passing the impugned order, has not issued a notice to the petitioners. Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 is in violation of principles of natural justice. He also submits that the respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the respondent Nos.8 and 10 to 15. He further submits that the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the petitioners and the respondents as per Section 103 of the KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT , 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.8 and 10 to 15 submits that if liberty is reserved to the respondent Nos.8 and 10 to 15 to make a representation to the Deputy Commissioner as per Section 103 of the Act, the petitioners will approach the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, prays to dispose of the writ petition.
8. Perused the records. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is not disputed that the respondent Nos.8 and 10 to 15 submitted a representation to the respondent No.4 to clear the alleged encroachment on nala. The respondent No.3 has sought for a report from the Taluka Surveyor. Accordingly, the Taluka Surveyor except issuing notice to the respondent Nos.8 and 10 to 15, has submitted a report stating that there is alleged encroachment in the nala. The respondent No.4 based on the report submitted by the Taluka Surveyor, has passed the impugned order. The respondent No.4 before passing an impugned order has not con
