PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, TOWN PLANNING, SOUTH DIVISION, BENGALURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the owner of the land measuring 1,67,966 square feet in the property municipal bearing No.8 (old), New No.5 (previously new Sy.No.113) situated at Hyderali Road, Nazarabad Mohalla, Mysore City, is before this Court impugning the notice dated 13.9.2019 issued by the respondent and the subsequent proceedings pending in Case No.JDLR.CTS.Suo-motu (M) Revision No.2/2019-20 on the file of the respondent.

(2.) The respondent has issued the impugned show cause notice dated 13.9.2019 calling upon the petitioner to show cause against cancellation of UPOR number allotted to the petitioner's property. The petitioner has responded to this show cause notice dated 13.9.2019 contending inter alia that the notice being issued in exercise of powers under Section 56 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), the respondent could not have issued the impugned notice beyond the timelines mentioned in Section 56(3) of the Act. The petitioner has filed not only the objections but has also detailed written arguments delineating the different objections including the power to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 56 of the Act beyond the timelines prescribed thereunder. The revision proceedings are pending before the respondent.

(3.) Sri Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has impugned both the show cause notice dated 13.9.2019 and the subsequent proceedings, the petitioner would have no difficulty in participating in the proceedings but for the fact that the respondent in conducting the proceedings has issued notice dated 10.8.2020 addressed to the Director of Karnataka Police Academy, Nazarabad Mohalla, Hyder Ali Road, Mysuru, Circle Inspector, Nazarabad Polie Station, Mysuru, Technical Assistant to Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Director of Land Records, Mysuru, Assistant Revenue Officer, Zone-7 and Sub-Registrar, Mysuru calling upon them to participate in the proceedings. The presence of these authorities would be completely extraneous to the decision on merits as well as the petitioner's defence as regards the power to initiate such proceedings, and there is roving enquiry. The learned Additional Government Advocate, who was called upon to secure instructions to place on record the circumstances that prompted the respondent to issue notice dated 10.8.2020, is unable to place on record the circumstances that would justify issuance of such notice. Further, the respondent, in the light of the petitioner's specific defence as regards the jurisdiction in view of the proviso to Section 56(3) of the Act, will have to consider this preliminary objection.