BINDU JOSEPH Vs. TAHASILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in all these matters have assailed the notice dtd. 15/4/2023 in No.ALN(G)H/CR/26/20-21 passed by the Tahsildar, whereby the Tahsildar has observed that the petitioners have put up construction in an illegally formed layout without obtaining necessary approvals, in a land bearing Sy. No.110/2 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas of Hurulichikkanahalli, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore.

(2.) It is stated that by virtue of such violation of the requirements stipulated under law, proceedings are initiated under Sec. 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'). It is further submitted that a sketch has been made, upon spot inspection and within 7 days of the notice, the petitioners are required to remove the structure by themselves and to restore the land to the original nature, i.e., agricultural land. Further, in light of the violation noticed above, a penalty of Rs.1,00,000.00 has been imposed, which is required to be made good failing which the Authorities would remove unauthorised structure and recover costs from the petitioners.

(3.) Sri. Srikanth N.V., learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a jurisdictional point stating that the notice cannot be issued by the Tahsildar and requires to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner and on that sole ground, notice may be set aside. He further submits that even otherwise, the notice at Annexure-A is in the nature of an order and ought to have been preceded by affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case. It is submitted that the Tahsildar has proceeded on the premise that violation has been proved. It is submitted that however, such a finding can be recorded only after affording an opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case. He also submits that under Sec. 96(1) of the Act, the penalty is not to exceed Rs.1,000.00, however the penalty that is mentioned in the notice at Annexure-A is Rs.1,00,000.00.