(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.
(2.) The appellant is the writ petitioner. The first prayer made in the writ petition filed by the appellant was for issuing a writ of mandamus against the respondents restraining them from demolishing or taking any coercive action in respect of the schedule property without issuing notice and without complying with the due process of law. The second prayer was for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish or take any coercive action in respect of the schedule property without providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The third prayer was for quashing the notice dated 5th October 2016 issued by the Tahasildar alleging that the appellant has illegally constructed corporate office in Sy.No.15 of a lake. The Tahasildar called upon the appellant to submit a reply. The State Government, the Tahasildar, the revenue inspector and the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority were parties to the petition. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge directed a joint survey to be conducted by the second respondent Tahasildar for identifying the encroachment/violations, if any. The learned single Judge directed that appropriate orders shall be passed by the second respondent in accordance with law pursuant to joint survey after providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
(3.) The first submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant is that by order dated 27th September 2018, an affidavit was directed to be filed by the fourth respondent - Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority (for short, 'the said authority'). Instead of the said authority filing the affidavit, the Tahasildar filed the affidavit and by relying upon the affidavit of the Tahasildar that the impugned order has been passed without deciding the issue whether the Tahasildar will have the authority to direct removal of encroachments made on a lake.