PRATHAPA U. T. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Notice to respondent No.4 is not necessary for the following reasons:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Annexure-G is the representation given by the petitioners to the respondent-Tahsildar, Nagamangala Taluk stating that they have established shops and they are paying rents to Sri.Maramma Temple since the land belongs to Sri.Maramma Temple. The petitioners are in possession of the shops for more than five years now. However, recently revenue entries have been mutated and the name of Sri.Maramma Temple has been removed from the revenue records and the name of Government has been inserted. Threats were given to the petitioners to evict the shops or they will be forcibly evicted. Therefore, the said representation was given to the Tahsildar requesting him to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before taking action to evict them. However, Annexures-H to K are the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar fixing the date of 26/2/2026 for eviction of the petitioners from the lands in question with the protection of Police.

(3.) Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that such an action could not have been taken by the Tahisldar without following due process of law.