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
  • 108
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
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows State Appeal in Grant-in-Aid for Non-Teaching Staff Dispute. Rule 115(3) of Bombay Primary Education Act, 1949 Applies Only to Educational Bodies or Associations Conducting Multiple Schools; Denial to Single School Not Violative ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Reviews Interim Injunction in Bottling Agreement and Trade Mark Dispute; Division Bench Restrained Licensee from Dealing with Competing Brands. Negative Covenant in 1993 Agreement and Unauthorized Share Transfer to Pepsi Affiliates Form...