ORDER : Raghavendra S. Chauhan, J. The petitioners-M/s. Shakthi Hill Resorts Private Limited and Mr. A. Ramesh Arun, are aggrieved by the notice dated 29-7-2015 passed by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk. By the said notice the Tahsildar has directed them to vacate the unauthorised area falling in Survey No. 8, measuring 6.01 acres in Vaddarapalya Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, by 1st of August, 2015, failing which, he has threatened them that property situated in the said survey number belonging to the petitioner shall be taken over by force by the office, at Government cost, and the cost shall be recovered from the petitioners as part of land revenue. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioners claim that they have got certain property situated in Survey No. 183, of Bangalore South Taluk, in the year 1995-96 through authorised sale deeds. Subsequently, after getting the nature of the land changed from agriculture to non-agricultural, after getting the sanctioned plan from the Competent Authority, they constructed a resort for the people at large. According to petitioner 2, out of his own pocket, he has constructed a temple devoting to Lord Shiva. He has invested a huge amount in the construction of the said temple. According to the petitioners, the temple is a popular one where large number of devotees come for their prayers and rituals. 3. Since there was a dispute between the petitioners and the respondent, since the respondents were interfering with the peaceful possession of the said property, the petitioners instituted a suit for permanent injunction, namely, O.S. No. 3595 of 2007 before the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. By judgment and decree dated 12-9-2014, the suit was decreed in the petitioners favour. According to them, ever since the passing of the decree, they have been peacefully enjoying the property. 4. However, suddenly on 29-7-2015, the Tahsildar has issued the impugned notice as mentioned above. According to the petitioners, the said notice was not served upon them personally on 29-7-2015. In fact, it was pasted on the security room at the entrance gate of the club on 31st of July, 2015. 4. However, suddenly on 29-7-2015, the Tahsildar has issued the impugned notice as mentioned above. According to the petitioners, the said notice was not served upon them personally on 29-7-2015. In fact, it was pasted on the security room at the entrance gate of the club on 31st of July, 2015. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, sine this morning, the respondents have reaching the property belonging to the petitioner; they have seized the property; they have locked up some of the rooms and cottages and are in the process of cutting the road so that neither the petitioner will have access to the property, nor the devotees would be able to attend the temple. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also informs this Court that even while this judgment is being dictated, the main gate of the building has been removed by the respondents. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 5. Mr. V. Lakshminarayan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the dispute with regard to the location of the property, whether it falls within Survey No. 183 or within Survey No. 8 has already been decided by the Civil Court in its judgment and decree dated 12-9-2014. Although the respondents claim that the property falls under Survey No. 8, but in fact the property is located in Survey No. 183. Secondly, although initially Survey No. 183 had been acquired by the Government, subsequently, in a contempt petition, the Government has de-notified the Survey No. 183. Thirdly, all the constructions constructed by the petitioner have been constructed after the sanction plan was approved by the concerned authority. Fourthly, although the impugned notice mentions a large number of documents, but in the operative portion of the notice, it does not show as to how these documents are related to Survey No. 8. Moreover, no reason has been given for the conclusion drawn by the Tahsildar that the petitioners have encroached upon Survey No. 8, except saying that "a Taluk Surveyor, had surveyed the land". But, neither the date when the survey was carried out, nor the fact that the survey was carried out within the knowledge of the petitioners has been mentioned in the notice. According to the learned Counsel, no survey was made in the presence of the petitioner. But, neither the date when the survey was carried out, nor the fact that the survey was carried out within the knowledge of the petitioners has been mentioned in the notice. According to the learned Counsel, no survey was made in the presence of the petitioner. Fifthly, according to Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), the notice has to be delivered personally on the person or persons in possession of the property. However, so far the notice has not been delivered personally on the petitioners, except, the claim of the respondents that they have pasted the same. Most importantly, according to Section 39 of the Act, a reasonable time has to be given by the Competent Authority to the person in possession of the property for vacating the property. In the present case, the notice was issued on 29-7-2015, was pasted on 31-7-2015 at 5.00 p.m., and the property has been seized within 24 hours by the respondents. Even the time given in the notice was hardly of three days. Therefore, a sufficient and a reasonable time has not been given by the respondents. Their acts are not only unfair, unjust and unreasonable, but are also rather arbitrary and high-handed. Therefore, the notice needs to be set aside by this Court and the action of the respondents needs to deprecated by the Court. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the State has pleaded that although the petitioners' property lies in Survey No. 183, but the said survey number relates to Halagevaderahalli Village, and not to the Vaddarapalya Village. Therefore, according to him, the land being ; encroached by the petitioner is not a part of Survey No. 183, but is a different survey number altogether. Moreover, Survey No. 8 belongs to totally different village than the village under which the Survey No. 183 falls. Secondly, since the petitioners have encroached upon a land which does not belong to them, but belongs to the Government, the respondent was justified in issuing the notice. According to him, three days time is a sufficient time for the petitioner to vacate. According to the learned Counsel, since encroachments have increased, therefore, a serious view has been taken by the respondents to clear the encroachments and to regain the land which lawfully belongs to the Government. According to him, three days time is a sufficient time for the petitioner to vacate. According to the learned Counsel, since encroachments have increased, therefore, a serious view has been taken by the respondents to clear the encroachments and to regain the land which lawfully belongs to the Government. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned notice, as well as other documents submitted by the petitioner. Section 39 of the Act is as under: "39. Manner of evicting any person wrongfully in possession of land. Whenever it is provided by this Act or any other law for the time being in force that the Deputy Commissioner may or shall evict any person wrongfully in possession of land or where any order to deliver possession of land has been passed against any person under this Act, such eviction shall be made or such order shall be executed, as the case may be, in the following manner, namely. - (i) by serving a notice on the person or persons in possession requiring them within such time as may appear reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land; and (ii) if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate officer to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same; and (iii) if the officer removing any such person is resisted or obstructed by any person, the Deputy Commissioner or the Revenue Officer, as the case may be, shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case and, if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and that such resistance and obstruction still continues, may, without prejudice to any proceedings to which such person may be liable under any law for the time being in force for the punishment of such resistance or obstruction, take or cause to be taken, such steps and use or cause to be used, such force as may, in the opinion of such officer, be reasonably necessary for securing compliance with the order." 7. Therefore, the requirement of law is that the notice has got to be served personally, and a reasonable time should be given to the person in possession of the property for vacating the said property. Therefore, the requirement of law is that the notice has got to be served personally, and a reasonable time should be given to the person in possession of the property for vacating the said property. Even if the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents were considered to be true, for the sake of arguments, the question before this Court is "whether three days time is sufficient especially keeping in mind that the notice was served upon the petitioner after the office hours on 31-7-2015?" Obviously, the answer to this question would be in the negative. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed the view that a reasonable time has to be given for vacating the property by the Competent Authority to a person who is alleged to be a encroacher. A reasonable time, according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is where from one week to fifteen days. 8. Undoubtedly, the Tahsildar represents the State. Undoubtedly, every action of the State has to be fair, just and reasonable. Any act which is unfair, unjust or unreasonable, is deprecated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A notice of merely three days, that too, a notice which has been served only on 31st July, 2015, cannot permit the respondents to take its action within 24 hours of the service of notice. Such a act would certainly be, arbitrary, high-handed and undemocratic. It would not only violate the letter and spirit of Section 39 of the Act, but would also violate the constitutional mandate which expects the State to be just, fair and reasonable. 9. The respondents cannot be oblivious of the fact that there are disputed questions of facts which need to be thrashed out with regard to the location of the property in question. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to the property which is located in Survey No. 183, situated at Halagevaderahalli Village, whereas, according to the respondents, the encroachment being made by the petitioner and his property is situated in Survey No. 8 of Vaddarapalya Village. Considering the fact that there is a judgment and decree of the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner, the same would have to be necessarily considered by the respondents before passing any adverse notice against the petitioner. Considering the fact that there is a judgment and decree of the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner, the same would have to be necessarily considered by the respondents before passing any adverse notice against the petitioner. Moreover considering the fact that a temple does exist, which has attracted large number of devotees, any act of demolition of a temple is likely to hurt the religious feelings of the persons living in that area and is likely to ignite problems which may go out of control. Therefore, the respondents are expected to be reasonable before taking any adverse action against the petitioners. For reasons stated above, the petitions are hereby allowed. The notice dated 29-7-2015 is hereby set aside. However, this Court grants the liberty to the respondents to reissue a notice to the petitioners, if the respondents are of the opinion that the petitioners have, in fact, encroached upon Survey No. 8 of Vaddarapalya Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. The respondents are directed to give 15 days clear notice to the petitioners, to give them an opportunity of hearing, to give them an opportunity of submitting their documentary evidence before the Commissioner. Only thereafter, shall a reasoned decision be passed. After taking all the steps in accordance with law, the Commissioner is permitted to issue a notice to the petitioners directing them to vacate the premises. The learned Counsel for the petitioners prays that the seizure of the property by the respondents should be undone by them. Therefore, this Court directs the respondents to immediately unlock the property, and not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners till the final order is passed by the concerned Commissioner. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of the operative portion of this order immediately to the respondents for their information and compliance.