- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24660 WP No. 14791 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 14791 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI C N CHIKKA BYRA REDDY S/O LATE. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT. CHOWDENAHALLI VILLAGE AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGI REDDY B V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETORY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, AMBEKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101. 4. THE TAHASILDAR CHINTAMANI TALUK CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTICT-562101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SPOORTI.V, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS) Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24660 WP No. 14791 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO. N.CR/CR/167/2025-26 DTD. /04/2026 ISSUED BY THE R-4 TAHASILDAR, CHINTAMANI TALUK CHINTAMANI (ANNX-H), ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking for the following reliefs: (a) a writ of certiorari quashing the order No.N.CR/CR/167/2025-26 dated /04/2026 issued by the fourth respondent Tahsildar, Chintamani Taluk, Chintamani (Annexure-H); (b) A writ of mandamus restraining the respondent authorities from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule immovable property described in the schedule here under. (c) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24660 WP No. 14791 of 2026 3. According to the petitioner, land bearing Sy. No.52 of Chowdadenahalli village, Chintamani Taluk, had been in unauthorized occupation of his ancestors, and in the year 1953, the then Amaldhar had collected fine of Rs.3/- each from the unauthorized occupants. Subsequently, in the year 1996, the family members of the petitioner had filed a partition suit in O.S.No.138/19906 and the property in question was allotted to petitioner's share in the compromise decree passed in the said suit by the jurisdictional Civil Court at Chintamani. Thereafter, the petitioner has constructed a house in the said property and has been residing in the same. 4. The Tahsildar has issued the impugned notice at Annexure-H dated nil bearing No.N-CR/CR/167/2025-26 directing the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the aforesaid property to the State and the petitioner is also asked to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against him under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') for unauthorizedly occupying the Government land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24660 WP No. 14791 of 2026 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that petitioner has been asked to hand over the property in question without even there being any inquiry with regard to the allegation that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the land in question. He submits that the petitioner and his ancestors have been in possession of the property since the year 1953. No opportunity has been given to the petitioner to place the records available with him before the Tahsildar. 6. Per contra, learned AGA has argued in support of the impugned notice and submits that the land in question is undisputedly a Government land. Therefore, the Tahsildar is justified in issuing the impugned notice. 7. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that prior to issuing the impugned notice dated nil, the Tahsildar has not issued any notice to the petitioner calling upon him to produce necessary documents in support of his claim over the land in question. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24660 WP No. 14791 of 2026 8. In the case of LALITHA SHASTRY VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 2008 KAR 4520, this Court has held that even for initiating proceedings under Section 192-A of the Act, prior notice to the concerned party is mandatory. 9. In the case on hand, without holding any inquiry and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Tahsildar has asked him to hand over possession of the property, failing which he has threatened to forcibly evict him. A reading of the impugned notice would go to show that the Tahsildar has directed the petitioner to first hand over possession of the property in question to the State Government and then to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for registering a criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 192-A of the Act. 10. Without issuing prior notice and without holding an inquiry, the Tahsildar could not have arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of the land in question and a direction could not have been given to him in the impugned notice to hand over possession of the said property to the State Government. Under the circumstances, I - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24660 WP No. 14791 of 2026 am of the opinion that if the petitioner is granted an opportunity to place all the documents before the Tahsildar in response to the impugned notice, which shall be treated as a show cause notice and if the respondent-Tahsildar is directed to hold an inquiry and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following order: 11. Writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file his reply along with supportive documents to the impugned notice at Annexure-H bearing No.N.CR/CR/167/2025-26, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If such a reply is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the Tahsildar in accordance with law and appropriate orders shall be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for evicting him from the property in question. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK