BETWEEN:

SRI VENKATESH D R

S/O RAMANNA

AGE 53 YEARS

R/AT DASEGOWDA PALYA,

VTC MARIKUPPE, MAGADI TALUK

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 127

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MURALI N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BENGALURU - 560 001.

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

2. THE TAHSILDAR,

MAGADI TALUK OFFICE

RAMANAGARA - 562 159

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,

MAGADI TALUK OFFICE

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159

4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,

SOLUR HOBLI,

MAGADI TALUK,

RAMANAGARA - 562 120

5. THE TALUK SURVEYOR

SOLUR HOBLI,

MAGADI TALUK

RAMANAGARA - 562 120

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/04/2026 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TAHSILDAR BEARING NO.TAHMGD-LND013/08/2026 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 E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents

2. In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2, inter-alia sought for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner's land without following due process of law.

3. Learned counsel Sri. Murali. N, appearing for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and submitted that, it is the duty of the respondents / authorities to mandatorily issue a notice to the petitioner before passing the order at Annexure-A to the petition and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

4. Per contra, learned AGA Smt. B.P Radha, sought to justify the impugned order.

5. In the light of the submission made by both the counsels appearing for the parties and careful consideration of the averments made in the petition and also the language employed in Section 39 of the Act, I am of the view that, it is the duty of respondent No.2 to issue prior notice to the petitioner for eviction before taking any decision in the matter. It is also to be noted that the petitioner be permitted to file his reply to the order at Annexure-A, taking into consideration as a show cause notice and if such a reply is made by the petitioner herein within 3 weeks from the receipt of the order and same shall be considered by respondent No.2. Till the consideration of the said reply that may be made by the petitioner, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner.

6. With this observation the writ petition is disposed of.