Mysuru HC Quashes Police-Protection Request To Remove Allegedly Encroaching Bridge, Orders Fresh Survey After No Notice

The Tahsildar issued a communication dated 10 July 2024 to the jurisdictional police seeking protection for removal of an alleged encroachment, said to be a bridge constructed by the petitioner on lands in Sy. Nos. 77, 86, 88 and 89 of Choranahalli Village.

The petitioner contended that it had received neither notice of the survey nor notice or hearing before the proposed removal.

The State’s counsel confirmed that no notice had been issued before the communication or survey and sought an opportunity for the authorities to hear the petitioner and proceed according to law.

The petitioner sought to quash the communication.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement to provide notice and an opportunity to respond before taking action affecting a person’s interests.

The petitioner also relied on Rule 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1964, contending that the survey had been conducted without notice; the order did not separately interpret that Rule.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The communication to the police did not indicate that an enquiry had been conducted or that the petitioner had been heard before protection was sought for removal of the alleged encroachment.

The petitioner’s submission that it had received no notice of either the alleged encroachment or the survey was supported by the State’s confirmation that no notice had been issued.

In those circumstances, the Court held that proceedings pursuant to the communication could not continue without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

It directed a fresh survey in the petitioner’s presence, if no notice had been given for the earlier survey, followed by disclosure of the relevant survey report, receipt of the petitioner’s reply, and consideration of that reply.

The Tahsildar was directed to issue notice, make the relevant survey report available, obtain and consider the petitioner’s reply, and, if required, conduct a fresh survey in the petitioner’s presence.

The complainant who had sought impleadment was permitted to participate in any enquiry.

The remanded proceedings were to be concluded within three months of receipt of the order, and the writ petition was disposed of.