- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2805 WP No. 35883 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.35883 OF 2024 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI VISHWANATH SHETTY S/O LATE SHESHA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT SANTHEHAKLU POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577 234. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR B N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE UNDERSECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND REFORMS) M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, D.C. COMPOUND, SHIVAMOGGA - 560 027. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2805 WP No. 35883 of 2024 4. THE TAHASILDAR THRITHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 560 226. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2024, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, VIDE ANNEXURE -A. 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 by the Member of the Land Tribunal assailing the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A. 2. The petitioner was nominated to serve as a Member of the Thirthahalli Land Tribunal, Shivamogga, by the appropriate authorities. However, based on a communication issued by Respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, alleging the pendency of cases against the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2805 WP No. 35883 of 2024 petitioner, removed the petitioner from the said post. The removal was effectuated without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, which the petitioner contends is a clear breach of the principles of natural justice. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision to remove him from the post of Member of the Land Tribunal. He asserts that there are no criminal cases pending against him and that the allegations leading to his removal are unsubstantiated. The petitioner contends that the impugned action of Respondent No. 2 is arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and not sustainable in law. He seeks the intervention of this Court to set aside the impugned order of removal. 4. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), representing the respondents, has submitted a memo along with supporting documents. The documents, according to the learned AGA, establish that the petitioner has been charge-sheeted in criminal cases. The AGA argues that the petitioner has consequently - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2805 WP No. 35883 of 2024 incurred a disqualification to hold the position of a Member of the Land Tribunal under the relevant rules and regulations governing such appointments. 5. The impugned order under challenge, however, does not explicitly state that the petitioner’s removal is based on the pendency of criminal cases. Instead, the order appears to rely on allegations related to pending civil cases against the petitioner, as evidenced by the contents of Annexure-E. This discrepancy raises significant concerns regarding the basis and validity of the removal order. 6. During the proceedings, this Court queried the learned AGA regarding the specific statutory provision or legal authority under which the petitioner could be deemed disqualified due to the pendency of civil or criminal cases. The learned AGA was unable to identify or substantiate any relevant provision that would warrant such disqualification in the present circumstances. This lack of clarity further undermines the rationale behind the impugned order. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2805 WP No. 35883 of 2024 7. Notwithstanding the above, the documents produced by the learned AGA undeniably indicate that the petitioner has been charge-sheeted in criminal cases. However, the petitioner was not provided with notice or an opportunity to respond to these allegations before the issuance of the impugned order. This omission constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. The matter requires remand to Respondent No. 2 for reconsideration, ensuring due compliance with the principles of natural justice and affording the petitioner an opportunity to present his case. 8. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 10.12.2024, passed by Respondent No. 2 and annexed as Annexure-A, is hereby quashed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2805 WP No. 35883 of 2024 (iii) The matter is remitted back to Respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration. (iv) Respondent No. 2 is directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity to submit his explanation and present his case. (v) Respondent No. 2 shall take into account the documents indicating that the petitioner has been charge-sheeted in criminal cases and shall pass appropriate orders after providing the petitioner with a fair hearing and adhering to the principles of natural justice. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31