STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 3.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.46729 and 48690 - 705 of 2015, by which the petitions were allowed, the respondents therein are in appeal.

(2.) The petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order bearing No.LND/CR:49/15-16 dated 8.10.2015 and for a direction restraining the 2nd respondent or any person claiming through or under him from encroaching upon the lands in Survey Nos.98, 99/1, 99/2, 100, 101/1, 101/2, 101/3, 101/4, 101/5, 101/6, 101/7, 101/8, 102, 103, 104, 126 and 127 situated in Benniganahally Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli Bangalore. The petitioner states that the lands in the above survey numbers were subject matter of acquisition by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 (for short 'the Act') to an extent of 113 acres for DRDO Complex. The land owners had challenged the acquisition. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Court the State Government de- notified certain lands. The said de-notification was challenged by the Ministry of Defence, in whose favour land was notified for acquisition, by filing writ petitions.

(3.) The petitioner states that after completion of construction of 630 dwelling units, they received a notice dated 06.08.2015 alleging encroachment of Government Land in Survey Numbers 95, 134, 97, 98 and other survey numbers, of Benniganahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli and called upon the petitioner to vacate the encroachment. In the said notice, the petitioner was given an opportunity to produce documents and to appear before the Tahsildar. It is stated that the petitioner replied to the said notice enclosing the necessary documents. In its reply the petitioner stated that as per the sanctioned plan, to the western side of survey No.98, 14 feet walking path has been left and denied the alleged encroachment. The Tahsildar by his order dated 08.10.2015 ordered to vacate the encroached portion of the land in survey No.125 to an extent of 0.01 gunta, survey No.126 - 0.02 guntas and survey No.127 - 0.03 guntas and directed registration of the proceedings under Section 192(A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the instant writ petitions contending that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar is contrary to the details mentioned in the notice dated 06.08.2015. It was also contended that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar is contrary to Section 67 of the Act and no enquiry is conducted before passing the impugned order. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties to the lis allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order dated 08.10.2015. Further the learned Single Judge observed that if any damage is caused to the immovable property of the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to institute such legal proceedings as is available in law for recovery of damages as also cost of restoration. The learned Single Judge also permitted the petitioner to erect the compound wall to protect its properties with police protection. Aggrieved by the said order, the State is in appeal contending that the learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and further contended that the petitioner has encroached public property to an extent of 6 guntas.