Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9307
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Lalitha Kanneganti, J
SRI CHANDRA NAIK – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 5989 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Shiralli Dildar Jainusab
For the Respondents: Sri. Manthesh Shettar
An administrative authority lacks the jurisdiction to issue a notice directing a party to vacate premises when ownership is disputed, as such a notice functions as an unauthorized order without due process of law.
Headnote:The petitioner approached the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash a notice issued by the fourth respondent directing the petitioner to vacate land in Sy.No. 48/1A, alleging unauthorized construction on school land. The petitioner claimed absolute ownership via a registered sale deed from 1988 and asserted that construction was done with Gram Panchayat permission. The court found that the notice issued by the educational officer was effectively an order to vacate without proper legal basis. The primary issue was whether the fourth respondent had the jurisdiction to issue a notice directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. The court reasoned that if the property is disputed, the authority cannot simply issue a notice to vacate, as such an action constitutes an order passed without the necessary jurisdiction to determine ownership or possession. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the notice impugned dated 28.01.2022 is set aside.
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO - QUASH THE NOTICE AFFIXED/ ISSUED BY THE R4 DTD 28.01.2022 WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN “B” GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:
"a) Issue writ of Certiorari quashing the notice affixed/issued by the 4th respondent vide No.Aa2. Sa.Kattada/Teravu/2/2021-22 dated 28.01.2022 which is marked As Annexure-H.
b) Issue writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents authority not to interfere with the possession of the schedule property by the petitioner either by way of taking possession or evicting the petitioner from the schedule property;
c) Grant such other relief/s which deems fit to the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of land bearing Sy.No. 48/1A, situated at Honnur Village, Gollarahatti, Davanagere Taluk. The petitioner purchased the said property in the year 1988 under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.4211, Book No.1 and Volume No.1861 dated 05.12.1988, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Davanagere.
Ever since the purchase, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property as the absolute owner and he has been paying the necessary taxes. The petitioner applied for plan for the construction permission before the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayath has given permission, thereafter, the petitioner had constructed house in the said site. The petitioners’ name was entered in the Pahanis and he has also filed the Pahanis for the years 2009-10, 2016-17. He had also applied for the Phodi of the land before the concerned Officer.
It is stated that in Sy.No. 48/1A, the total extent of the land is 13 acres belonging to Ajappa and his sons Nagappa and Vishwanath. Vishwanath had gifted some extent of land to the school. In some extent, he has sold the land to different purchasers and some other extent has given to National Highway Authority for the road widening purpose. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he has purchased an extent of 22 guntas of land from the said survey number. Earlier, he had applied for measurement of the land before the Survey Department due to disputes between the adjacent landowners.
The Survey Officials conducted the survey without prior information/notice to the petitioner and submitted a report to the School Authorities stating that the house which is constructed by the petitioner belongs to the School.
It is stated that based on the said survey report dated 18.11.2021, the 4th Respondent (Educational Officer) issued a notice dated 28.01.2022 stating that the petitioner had constructed a house on the school land unauthorizedly and directing him to vacate and hand over the schedule land to the 4th respondent immediately, as the land allegedly belongs to the Government.
Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner has come before this Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has put up the construction on the land belonging to the petitioner which he has purchased by way of a registered sale deed. It is submitted that the respondents, without any basis, have come to the conclusion that petitioner has unauthorizedly constructed by encroaching the land of the school. It is further submitted that the respondents have not adhered to the principles of natural justice and there is no basis for issuing the notice. Though it is stated that it is a notice, but in fact, it is an order passed by the respondent directing the petitioner to vacate the land. It is also submitted that 4th respondent has no jurisdiction to is
