Karnataka HC Sets Aside Tahsildar’s Order To Remove Woman’s Gate Over Public-Road Claim, Citing Lack Of Proper Inquiry

The Tahsildar, Bantwal, passed an order dated 10 February 2025 directing removal of a gate on the ground that the property was a public road

The petitioner stated that an earlier Tahsildar’s order had been appealed under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and that the Assistant Commissioner had directed that it be treated as a show-cause notice.

After the petitioner submitted objections, the Tahsildar issued the impugned order without further notice or enquiry, according to the petitioner

The petitioner also relied on pending civil litigation with respondent No. 4 concerning the property.

She alleged that the gate was removed pursuant to the impugned order and that she was injured during the removal; the Court did not adjudicate those allegations

Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 empowers the concerned authorities to take action concerning public roads, streets and paths.

Under Section 67(2), as noted by the Court, notice must be issued by the Deputy Commissioner or a Survey Officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner after a formal enquiry

Where authorities seek to determine that disputed property is a public road and take action affecting persons claiming an interest in it, they must conduct the enquiry required by law and provide those persons an adequate opportunity to be heard

The Court also noted that the impugned order referred to the Indian Easements Act, 1882, but held that the finding of a violation under that Act was erroneous on its face

The Tahsildar’s order rested on the finding that the road had been used by the public for about 40 years, but the Court held that this finding did not dispense with the statutory process required to determine and secure a public road

The impugned order neither identified a specific statutory basis for the Tahsildar’s action nor demonstrated that the formal enquiry and notice contemplated by Section 67(2) had been followed

Given the petitioner’s claim to an interest in the property and the related litigation, the authorities were required to proceed in accordance with law and afford her an opportunity to be heard

It left the authorities free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after notifying the petitioner, and kept the parties’ rights and contentions open

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s allegations concerning the subsequent removal of the gate or her injuries