Karnataka High Court Quashes Tahsildar's Notice for Lack of Statutory Basis — Notice Issued Without Authority of Law. The notice issued by the Tahsildar to stop construction and produce documents was quashed as it was not traceable to any statutory provision.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 13
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s Twenty Fourteen Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated 3rd December 2019 issued by the Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru. The notice called upon the petitioner to produce documents in respect of property bearing Survey No.103/B10 of Shettigere village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk and to stop construction immediately. The petitioner contended that the land was initially converted for non-agricultural residential purpose and subsequently for commercial purpose vide order dated 27th September 2007. The petitioner is a construction company and construction was in progress. The petitioner argued that the notice was not traceable to any statutory provision and was therefore unsustainable. The Court noted that on the last date of hearing, the Tahsildar was directed to be present. The Tahsildar submitted that he had issued the notice to verify records in respect of a different property and not the one owned by the petitioner. The Court observed that the notice does not refer to any statutory provision and is therefore unsustainable. The Court quashed the notice and directed the Tahsildar to verify the records and proceed in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Notice Without Statutory Authority - Quashing of Notice - The Tahsildar issued a notice to the petitioner to stop construction and produce documents without citing any statutory provision - The Court held that the notice is not traceable to any statutory provision and is therefore unsustainable in law - The notice was quashed (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a notice issued by the Tahsildar without any statutory provision is sustainable in law

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 3rd December 2019 (Annexure-S) is quashed. The Tahsildar is at liberty to verify the records and proceed in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Notice without statutory authority is unsustainable
  • Tahsildar cannot issue notice for a different property
  • Writ of Certiorari lies against illegal administrative action
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (KAR) (12) 29

Writ Petition No.52265/2019 (KLR-RES)

2019-12-19

P.S. Dinesh Kumar

Shri. Vivek Holla (for petitioner), Shri. Y.D. Harsha (AGA for respondents)

M/s Twenty Fourteen Hotels India Pvt. Ltd.

State of Karnataka, The Tahsildar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Tahsildar to stop construction and produce documents.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the notice dated 3.12.2019 issued by the Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk.

Filing Reason

The notice was issued without any statutory authority and was unsustainable.

Issues

Whether the notice issued by the Tahsildar without citing any statutory provision is sustainable in law.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the notice is not traceable to any statutory provision and is therefore unsustainable. Tahsildar submitted that the notice was issued to verify records in respect of a different property, not the petitioner's.

Ratio Decidendi

A notice issued by a statutory authority without any statutory backing is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner is challenging notice dated 3rd December 2019 (Annexure-S) issued by the Tahasildar... calling upon the petitioner to produce documents... and to stop construction immediately. He argued that the said notice is not traceable to any statutory provision and the same is, therefore, unsustainable in law. The Tahasildar submitted that he has issued the notice in question to verify records in respect of a different property and not the one owned by the petitioner. The notice does not refer to any statutory provision. Therefore, the notice is unsustainable in law.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed on an unspecified date. On the last date of hearing, the Tahsildar was directed to be present. On 19th December 2019, the Court heard the matter and passed the order.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revision Petition in Caste Correction Suit — No Error Apparent on Face of Record for Amendment Under Section 152 CPC. Application to correct cause title of judgment and decree dismissed as no clerical or arithmetic...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Income Tax Reopening Case — Reopening Invalid Due to Change of Opinion. Tribunal's finding that reassessment notice was based on mere change of opinion upheld under Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961...