RAJA, SRI SHIVAKUMAR ALIAS KUMAR, SRI SHANKAREGOWDA AND SRI K.V. NAGABHUSHAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE TAHSILDAR, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND THE MYSORE CITY CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioners have questioned the legality of the show cause notice dated 17 -3 -2011 [copy at Annexure -C to the writ petition] issued from the office of the deputy commissioner, Mysore, a notice purporting to have been issued under the provisions of Sections 39, 67(2), 94(3) and 94(4) of the Karnataka Revenue Act, 1964 [for short, the Act]. Under this notice, petitioners have all been termed as encroachers of parts of a tank located in Sy. No 31 of Malalawadi village, Mysore taluk, where some of them have also built unauthorized structures and the city survey officials having given a report in this regard to the office of the deputy commissioner and such encroachments being in violation Sections 39, 67(2), 94(3) and 94(4) of the Act, they are all called upon to vacate the premises in question within fifteen days and hand over the possession to the government i.e. to the tahsildar of the taluk, failing which steps would be taken to evict them from the encroached portions of the tank and they were also called upon to show cause as to why further proceedings under Section 192A of the Act by filing a criminal case should not be taken against them and for giving an option that if they have any supporting documents to justify the present position and possession or to have a personal hearing to put forth their versions and they were given an opportunity to appear before the deputy commissioner of the district at 4 p.m. on 29 -3 -2011. Petitioners claim that they are not encroachers; that they have purchased small bits and parcels of the land from its erstwhile owner by name Lakhsmamma w/o Appaiah of K.G. Koppal village, Mysore; that the land in which they are in occupation and constructed houses/structures is not located in Sy. No 31 of Malalawadi village, but it is in Sy. No 62/1 and the erstwhile owner has formed a revenue layout; that they hail from poor families; that they have been able to put up some small structures with their hard earned earnings and that they have also power connections and water/sewage connections; that they are residing in the houses ever since 1992 -93 without any interruption and the impugned show cause is ill -conceived, which is a clear misdirection to persons who are not in occupation of the land in Sy. No 31 etc.

(2.) HOWEVER , more importantly, the petitioners have questioned the validity of this notice itself on the premise that it is not a show cause notice, but loaded one with the first part of the notice indicates that there is already a presumption that the petitioners are encroachers of the survey number mentioned in the notice and that unless they hand over the vacant possession and removed their things, action would be taken against them and the show cause notice is only for seeking an explanation as to why a criminal case should not be registered against them.

(3.) SRI Narendra D.V. Gowda, learned counsel for petitioners, on the other hand, submits that petitioners have no objection to appear and explain before the deputy commissioner if it is only a show cause, but it is not merely a show cause notice, but for taking more action on the assumption that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants of the subject land, though the very identity of the land is in doubt, inasmuch as the survey number mentioned in the show cause notice is 31, whereas the petitioners' claim is that they have purchased the land developed by the erstwhile owner Lakshmamma in Sy. No. 62/1.