SYED USMAN PASHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate are heard and the impugned notices dated 20.08.2020, as per Annexures-F, G, H and J.

(2.) The petitioners' grievance is that though they are the absolute owners of the different portions of the properties purchased by their predecessor-in-title registered sale deeds/s, the impugned notices have been issued separately to each of the petitioners stating that they have put up construction encroaching Government property viz., kharab katte in Sy. No.77 of Thattekere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channapatna Taluk.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the fourth respondent while issuing the notice to show cause against alleged encroachment, has decided that there is encroachment and the construction will have to be demolished. If the authorities demolish the construction despite the notice to show cause, such action would be preemptive. It would be indisputable that the purport of the notices is only to solicit response and to decide in accordance with law and not to take any precipitative action such as action for demolition during the pendency of the inquiry. The learned Additional Government Advocate is unable to controvert the same.