Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 29202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.24952 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. G N DEVARAJ S/O G R NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMIPURA HOSALLI POST THIRTHAHALLI ROAD SHIVAMOGGA - 577432 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.DILEEP KUMAR M V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION Location: HIGH BALARAJ URS ROAD COURT OF SHIVAMOGGA - 577201 KARNATAKA
2. THE TAHSILDAR SHIVAMOGGA TALUK COURT COMPLEX DCC BANK SHIVAMOGGA KARNATAKA - 577201
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION BALARAJ URS ROAD SHIVAMOGGA - 577201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.HARISHA A.S, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMMANDING THE R-1 TO DEFER ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN L.N.D.CR-170/19-20 UNTIL THE R-2 SUBMITS THE FACT-FINDING REPORT AS SOUGHT BY THE R-1 IN TERMS OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 02.03.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1, the Assistant Commissioner, as evidenced by Annexure-F. The main contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel, while reiterating the arguments made in the writ petition, is that the suo motu enquiry initiated by Respondent No.1 under Section 108K of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules is based on the claim that the grant awarded to the petitioner violates a Government Notification. The primary issue is that the granted land is located within an 18-kilometer radius. Following the remand order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, instructed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to submit a report regarding the 18-kilometer radius, as shown in Annexure-A. Despite seeking a report from the Tahsildar, Respondent No.1 has proceeded with the enquiry, as evidenced by Annexure-F.
4. I find merit in the arguments presented by the learned Senior Counsel.
5. When Respondent No.1, the Assistant Commissioner, has requested a report and issued directions to Respondent No. 2, the Tahsildar, it is expected that the Assistant Commissioner should not proceed with the enquiry without first receiving the report. However, the records indicate that, contrary to this expectation, Respondent No.1 is moving forward with the enquiry, which may prejudice the petitioner’s rights. Therefore, this Court holds that Respondent No. 1 cannot proceed with the enquiry until the report from Respondent No. 2 is received.
6. In light of the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1, the Assistant Commissioner, as evidenced by Annexure-F, are hereby defered.
(iii) Respondent No.1 is directed not to proceed with the enquiry until a report is duly submitted by Respondent No.2, the jurisdictional Tahsildar, regarding the radius of 18 kilometers, as previously directed.
(iv) Upon receipt of the report from Respondent No.2, Respondent No.1 may proceed in accordance with law, ensuring that the petitioner is provided an opportunity to be heard.
(v) All rights and contentions of the parties are left open, and the petitioner is at liberty to challenge any adverse orders, if passed, in accordance with law.
(vi) No cost.
