Manoj Kumar Kothari vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased property bearing Re-Survey No. 33 measuring 16 guntas 6 annas situated at Gubbura Village, Hubli Taluk. The land purchased was converted by the petitioner from agricultural purposes to industrial purposes as per the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad dated 18.11.1982. The petitioner purchased a portion of the said property under a sale deed dated 8.5.2013. The petitioner had applied for sanction of a plan of an industrial building on the said property and it was accordingly granted and the petitioner had set up an industry and after obtaining loans from financial institutions, had started operations and he had engaged 25 employees in the said industry. However, it is stated that on the basis of a complaint that the petitioner had violated the law in not having sought bifurcation of the property in purchasing the same, the matter was referred to the Technical Assistant namely the Deputy Commissioner and ex-officio Director of Land Records, Dharwad, to take necessary action and the said reference was treated as an appeal under Section 49(a) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ''the LR Act'', for brevity). In the said appeal, other persons were said to be made parties and the petitioner was arrayed as the sixth respondent and by an order dated 8.5.2014, the Deputy Director of Land Records (DDLR), had passed an order cancelling the subdivision of the property and directed the Assistant Director of Land Records to provide documents in this regard. The petitioner had filed a revision petition against the said order. The third respondent in turn, had cancelled the sanctioned plan by virtue of an order dated 24.05.2014 with respect to the construction that had been put up and consequently, a further order was passed by the fourth respondent cancelling the trade licence issued to the petitioner.

Being aggrieved by these orders cancelling the sanctioned plan and the trade licence that was granted to the industry that was operating, the present writ petitions are filed.

It is found that insofar as the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner, there was a show cause notice issued to him insofar as the cancellation of the sanctioned plan was concerned at Annexure-"A", to which the petitioner had not made any response. Insofar as the cancellation of the trade licence was concerned, admittedly, there was no show cause notice issued. In any event, the petitioner has not been heard either in respect of the cancellation of the sanctioned plan or cancellation of the trade licence. Though the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that the petitioner not having responded to the show cause notice, the respondents were not obliged to await the petitioner''s response beyond a point of time and hence the cancellation of the trade licence by the consequential order of cancellation of the sanctioned plan, there is no illegality committed. It is the petitioner''s own default that the petitioner seeks to take advantage of in claiming that there was no opportunity of hearing. Since admittedly the petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner not having chosen to appear to state his case, cannot now seek the intervention of this Court when he is in default and would seek the dismissal of the petition. Further, it is stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned orders, it is for him to prefer an appeal since he is provided with an alternative remedy, which is yet another ground on which the writ petitions would have to be summarily dismissed.

While there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for Respondents 2 to 4, the fact remains that the petitioner ought to have been heard and his objections ought to have been considered in proceeding to take the extreme measure of cancelling of the sanctioned plan, which would entail the demolition of the construction that may have been put up and cancellation of trade licence, which in effect takes away the livelihood of the petitioner and 25 other employees who are said to be employed in the industry. Therefore, if there is any semblance of a right and if it is possible for the petitioner to demonstrate that there is no illegality committed, it would be necessary in the interest of justice, to afford him an opportunity of hearing.

Therefore, the petitioner is granted one week''s time to file his objections to the show cause notice issued prior to the issuance of the order at Annexure-"A" and the petitioner shall reply to the same and shall be heard by the authorities. In the event the petitioner fails to file his reply to the show cause notice within one week, the impugned orders shall have full force and shall bind the petitioner.

Since it is stated that the show cause notice itself was challenged by the petitioner in a civil suit which is pending in O.S. No. 657/2013, the petitioner shall withdraw that suit forthwith and shall file his objections to the show cause notice within one week from the date of a copy of this order and the respondents thereafter shall fix a date for hearing, within one week thereafter and proceed further, in accordance with law. Consequently, subject to the petitioner withdrawing the pending suit and complying with the formality of filing objections to the show cause notice, the petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents are at liberty to proceed further, in accordance with law.