- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7662 WP No. 4323 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 4323 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. INDIRA KUMAR W/O SOMAPPA KOTIAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RF/AT HOUSE NO.10-31 NAGAMA NILAYA, KADEKAR VILLAGE PADUKERE, KUDRUKERE POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 108. 2. SRI. PRABHAKAR KUNDER S/O LATE BOLA SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RF/AT HOUSE NO. 10-31 NAGAMA NILAYA, KADEKAR VILLAGE PADUKERE, KUDRUKERE POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 108. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYANTHA POOJARY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARMTENT M S BUILDING BANGLAORE-560 001. REP BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE TAHSILDAR UDUPI Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7662 WP No. 4323 of 2025 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 28.10.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. 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 This petition is filed assailing the notice dated 28.10.2024, wherein respondent No.2 under the impugned notice has called upon the petitioners to demolish and vacate the premises. The said impugned notice is under challenge. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the respondents. 3. The petitioners assert that, in addition to their family property, they and their family members are in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7662 WP No. 4323 of 2025 unauthorized occupation and possession of government land bearing Sy.No.109/1A1, measuring a total of 8 cents. The petitioners claim to have constructed a shop on this land and are operating a ration shop with a valid license obtained from the local authorities. Acknowledging their unauthorized occupation, the petitioners have submitted an application to respondent No.2 seeking regularization of the land under Section 94(c). However, the petitioners allege that, without due consideration of their application, respondent No.2 is now attempting to demolish the shop, which is the subject of the pending application under Section 94(c). 4. Learned AGA, on instructions, has now produced the Xerox copy of photographs indicating that petitioners have unauthorizedly constructed a shop by encroaching over the road. 5. Upon a preliminary examination of the photographs, it is evident that a portion of the disputed shop encroaches onto the road. While the petitioners have - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7662 WP No. 4323 of 2025 the legal right to seek consideration of their application for regularization, they cannot justify the encroachment under the pretext of seeking regularization for an extent of 8 cents. The photographs clearly show that the width of the road narrows at the point where the petitioners’ shop is constructed, compared to other sections of the road. The petitioners have fairly conceded their willingness to remove the encroached portion, subject to the respondent No.2 considering their application for regularization of the remaining portion. 6. In light of the petitioners’ statement, respondent No.2 (Tahsildar) is directed to conduct a spot inspection and demarcate the portion of the shop that encroaches upon the road. If such an encroachment is confirmed, the petitioners must remove the identified portion within four weeks. Following the removal, respondent No.2 shall assess the petitioners’ eligibility for regularization of the remaining unauthorized occupation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7662 WP No. 4323 of 2025 Until this inquiry is completed, respondent No.2 shall refrain from taking any coercive action. 7. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.2 (Tahsildar) shall conduct the spot inspection on 19.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m. The petitioners are directed to fully cooperate in facilitating this inspection. If the petitioners fail to remove the encroached portion within the stipulated time, respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to demolish the entire shop. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38