MANOJ KUMAR KOTHARI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased property bearing Re -Survey No. 33 measuring 16 guntas 6 annas situated at Gubbura Village, Hubli Taluk. The land purchased was converted by the petitioner from agricultural purposes to industrial purposes as per the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad dated 18.11.1982. The petitioner purchased a portion of the said property under a sale deed dated 8.5.2013. The petitioner had applied for sanction of a plan of an industrial building on the said property and it was accordingly granted and the petitioner had set up an industry and after obtaining loans from financial institutions, had started operations and he had engaged 25 employees in the said industry. However, it is stated that on the basis of a complaint that the petitioner had violated the law in not having sought bifurcation of the property in purchasing the same, the matter was referred to the Technical Assistant namely the Deputy Commissioner and ex -officio Director of Land Records, Dharwad, to take necessary action and the said reference was treated as an appeal under Section 49(a) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LR Act', for brevity). In the said appeal, other persons were said to be made parties and the petitioner was arrayed as the sixth respondent and by an order dated 8.5.2014, the Deputy Director of Land Records (DDLR), had passed an order cancelling the subdivision of the property and directed the Assistant Director of Land Records to provide documents in this regard. The petitioner had filed a revision petition against the said order. The third respondent in turn, had cancelled the sanctioned plan by virtue of an order dated 24.05.2014 with respect to the construction that had been put up and consequently, a further order was passed by the fourth respondent cancelling the trade licence issued to the petitioner.

(3.) WHILE there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for Respondents 2 to 4, the fact remains that the petitioner ought to have been heard and his objections ought to have been considered in proceeding to take the extreme measure of cancelling of the sanctioned plan, which would entail the demolition of the construction that may have been put up and cancellation of trade licence, which in effect takes away the livelihood of the petitioner and 25 other employees who are said to be employed in the industry. Therefore, if there is any semblance of a right and if it is possible for the petitioner to demonstrate that there is no illegality committed, it would be necessary in the interest of justice, to afford him an opportunity of hearing.