- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46050 WP No. 31641 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 31641 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: ABDUL HAFIZ S/O LATE. BABAJAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.385, NEW NO.102, KURUBURPET, MULBAGAL-TALUK, MULBAGAL-563131. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMAD JAVEEDULLA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE 01 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. TAHSILDAR, MULBAGAL -TALUK, MULBAGAL-563131. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHKHAR, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 25.09.2025 BEARING NO. NCR CR/42/2019-20 AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46050 WP No. 31641 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the notice at Annexure-A dated 25.09.2025. In terms of the said notice, the petitioner is treated to be an encroacher in terms of the report of the Revenue Inspector and has been directed to vacate and hand over the possession, failing which the proceedings under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') would be initiated. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice at Annexure-A is liable to be set aside as the petitioner is the owner of the property purchased in public auction from the Municipal Council and submits that there are registered documents in his favour and that he has been paying taxes to the Municipal Council. It is submitted that the question of resorting to a summary enquiry in the present case would not arise. It is also stated that if at all there is any encroachment as alleged, there ought to be a survey in the presence of the petitioner to determine as to whether in fact there was any encroachment of public property. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46050 WP No. 31641 of 2025 3. Learned AGA submits that action was taken on the basis of reports of the revenue inspector. 4. It must be noticed that the notice at Annexure-A seeking to invoke Section 192A of the Act which criminalize encroachment of public property cannot be issued without a prior enquiry. 5. If it is the case of the respondent-State that if the public property has been encroached upon, there must be notice issued to the petitioner and determination of encroachment of property by way of a survey in the presence of the petitioner. It is the case of the State that the State has a right over the property as being lake property or public property. Needless to state, prima facie, the procedure under Section 67 of the Act is required to be initiated with due notice to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. The Notice at Annexure-A is set aside. The respondents-authorities are at liberty to take appropriate action and follow the procedure as is available under the Act as regards alleged encroachment in accordance with law. Needless to state the question of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46050 WP No. 31641 of 2025 disturbing the petitioner's possession would not arise till all proceedings as contemplated and referred to above reach logical and legal finality. Needless to state any determination of encroachment must be after following principles of natural justice. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36