JUDGMENT B. Veerappa, J. - The petitioner in the present writ petition has sought for certiorari to quash the order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the respondent-Tahsildar in NCR/CR. No. 98/12-13 as per Annexure-K and writ of mandamus directing the respondent to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the lawful owner and in possession of the land bearing Sy. No. 20, measuring 1 acre 27 guntas and Sy. No. 21 measuring 3 acres 22 guntas situated at Chikkelluru Venkatapura Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Originally the said land was granted to Mr. Kempanna who is none other than the grandfather of the petitioner. After his death, the petitioners father and uncle were in possession and enjoyment of the said land and after their death, the petitioner succeeded to the said land and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment till date. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that to shock and surprise, he received a notice from the respondent informing him that eviction proceedings and criminal proceedings would be initiated against him in respect of the land in question. Petitioner applied for copy of the same and sought for time to furnish relevant documents to substantiate his lawful possession and ownership over the land in question. The respondent without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, unilaterally proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 19.11.2013. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for. 4. Respondent has not filed any objections. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 6. Sri Manukumar B.T., learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is in utter violation of principles of natural justice and same is liable to be quashed. He would further contend that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar without conducting the joint survey in the presence of the petitioner is erroneous depriving the right of the petitioner in respect of the property in question and same cannot be sustained. Though the petitioner is claiming his right over the property in question, the respondent-Tahsildar passed the impugned order without providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Though the petitioner is claiming his right over the property in question, the respondent-Tahsildar passed the impugned order without providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, Sri Harsha, learned AGA sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar. 8. Having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he is the lawful owner and in possession of the land bearing Sy. No. 20, measuring 1 acre 27 guntas and Sy. No. 21 measuring 3 acres 22 guntas situated at Chikkellure Venkatapura Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Originally the said land was granted to Mr. Kempanna who is none other than the grandfather of the petitioner. After his death, the petitioners father and uncle were in possession and enjoyment of the said land and after their death, the petitioner succeeded to the said property and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment till date. On careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar it is clear that neither the Tahsildar has issued any notice to the petitioner nor he has provided any opportunity of being heard. 9. This Court in the case of Smt. Lalitha Sastry v. State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, DPAL & others, reported in ILR 2008 Kar 4520 , while considering the provisions of Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has held as under:- '4. From the aforesaid circular it is clear the Government is now convinced that an opportunity should be given to all those alleged encroachers of Government land before any proceedings are initiated under Section 192A of the Act. In fact it stipulates a procedure under which a show cause notice is to be given calling upon those alleged encroachers to file their objections within 15 days. If no objections are received authorities are called upon to visit the spot, conduct a Mahazar in the presence of the villagers, obtain their signatures and thereafter to initiate criminal proceedings if they are satisfied that there is encroachment. In the event of alleged encroachers producing documents to examine the same and only in the event of the said documents are found to be fabricated or duplicate, to initiate proceedings under Section 192A of the Act. In the event of alleged encroachers producing documents to examine the same and only in the event of the said documents are found to be fabricated or duplicate, to initiate proceedings under Section 192A of the Act. In fact the said procedure contemplated by the Government satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice, an opportunity is given to these persons to realize whether they have occupied a Government land and if they are convinced to surrender possession to avoid criminal prosecution. That would meet the ends of justice. In that view of the matter, as the criminal prosecution is launched against all these petitioners without affording an opportunity to have their say and in the light of the circular which is passed by the Government, these proceedings cannot be sustained.' 10. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the respondent-Tahsildar cannot be sustained. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the respondent-Tahsildar in NCR/CR. No. 98/12-13 as per Annexure-K, is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent-Tahsildar for reconsideration of the same afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of the decision stated supra within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.