- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4618 WP No. 60954 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.60954 OF 2011 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. KOTRAIAH @ KOTRESH HIREMATH, S/O. GURUNANJAIAH HIREMATH, AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O: MAILARA VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BELLARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE TAHSILDAR, HUVINA HADAGALI TALUK, HUVINA HADAGALI, DIST: BELLARY. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 14/10/2010, BEARING NO.KUM. BHUMI:59:09-10 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4618 WP No. 60954 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the notice dated 14.10.2010, issued by the respondent produced as per Annexure-H. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned notice as per Annexure-H was issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to vacate 3 cents of land in Sy.No.373 of Mailara village, declaring it as an encroachment. It is the contention of the petitioner that no enquiry was held, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to substantiate his possession over the land. The was not notified before the surveying the land, even though Annexure-H refers to joint survey by the Revenue Inspector, Hire Hadagali, and the Surveyor of Hoovina Hadagali. No materials are available to show that such a joint survey was done with notice to the petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4618 WP No. 60954 of 2011 3. It is also contended that there is reference to Sections 39, 67 and 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for the purpose of evicting the person who is in wrongful possession of the land. But Section 39 of the Act, authorizes the Deputy Commissioner to evict the person in wrongful possession of the property, the notice impugned was issued by the Tahsildar. From the materials on record it is clear that the petitioner was not notified while conducting survey and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to substantiate his contention before issuance of the notice as per Annexure-H. Moreover, the Tahasildar concerned was not authorized to act under Section 39 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that notice as per Annexure-H, is liable to be quashed. 4. However the appropriate authority under the Land Revenue Act, can initiate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. In view of the discussions held above, I proceed to pass the following: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4618 WP No. 60954 of 2011 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned notice dated 14.10.2010, produced as per Annexure-H, issued by respondent is quashed. iii. The Deputy Commissioner concerned, who is authorized under Sections 39 and 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, may initiate appropriate action against the petitioner, in accordance with law, if he deems it necessary. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12