Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27370
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
E.S.Indiresh, J
G.K. Yalloji – Appellant
Versus
Office Of Tahasildar And Taluk Executive Magistrate – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 15614 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sachin B S
For the Respondents: Spoorthy Hegde N
Jurisdiction to order the removal of encroachments under Section 103 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, vests exclusively in the Deputy Commissioner, not the Tahasildar.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Tahasildar regarding the removal of alleged encroachments on a road, invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The petitioner contended that the respondent lacked the statutory jurisdiction to pass such an order. The court observed that under S. 103(2) of the Act, such authority is exclusively vested in the Deputy Commissioner, rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. The core issues were whether the Tahasildar possessed the statutory jurisdiction to order the removal of encroachments and whether the procedure followed adhered to the provisions of the Act. The court held that the power to act under S. 103 resides with the Deputy Commissioner, thus the impugned order was passed without proper jurisdiction. The court emphasized the requirement to consult the survey documents and the necessity of hearing the aggrieved parties before any coercive action. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the competent Deputy Commissioner for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition challenging an administrative order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. determination of statutory jurisdiction under section 103 of the land revenue act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. remand of the matter to the competent authority with procedural directions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.03.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS WP, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
1. In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 22.03.2017 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1.
2. Heard Sri B S Sachin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted by referring to Section 103 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') that the jurisdiction is vested with the competent Deputy Commissioner and not at the behest of the Assistant Commissioner. Further, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, has no jurisdiction to pass such an order and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure-A.
5. In light of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the impugned order at Annexure-A, it would indicate that respondent No.1 has taken a decision to remove the encroachments made in Bandidari road in land bearing Sy.Nos.1, 20, 21, 22 of Kamalapura Village, Chandragutti Hobli, Soraba Taluk.
6. Taking into consideration the language employed under Section 103 (2) of the Act, it is the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to take a decision in the matter, with respect to removing the encroachment, if any, to the right-of-way of the land owners.
7. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to pass the order in terms of Section 103 of the Act.
8. It is also to be noted that, while considering the plea under the provisions of the Act, it is desirable that the competent authority shall consider the sketch already prepared by Taluka Surveyor as produced at Annexure-C to the writ petition. It is also to be noted that while taking the decision in the matter, the aggrieved parties are to be heard before taking any decision.
9. Since the matter is remanded to the competent authority for further consideration, respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner, till conclusion of the matter.
10. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 22.03.2017 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 is set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga District to take decision in the matter, in accordance with law.
