Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 56 (KAR)

C. v. Nanjappa VS State Of Karnataka

2011-01-13

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2011
Judgment 1. Boundary disputes cannot be subject matter for scrutiny in writ jurisdiction, whether it is in the first round second round or third round. As to whether petitioner has acquired good right and interest in an extent of 4 acres of land claiming title under one Mahadeve Gowda and Shivanne Gowda in terms of sale deed executed on 1.1.2000 purporting to be on the basis of a grant order made in favour of the said Mahadeve Gowda in terms of an order dated 15.6.1978 passed by the Tahsildar, copy produced as Annexure-E to the petition, or as to whether the subject land is any part of an extent of 24 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.247 of the very Shivapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagar Taluk, is not a dispute that can be satisfactorily resolved by the writ court, irrespective of the number of rounds made either by the petitioner or the 4th respondent to this Court and irrespective of the number of writ proceedings that was generated earlier before this under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. It appears the dispute between the parties is that while the petitioner claims an extent of land as available in terms of the survey conducted on 17.4.2007 by the Tahsildar in terms of an affidavit dated 24.11.2009, copy produced as Annexure-N11 to the petition; that proceedings of the Tahsildar did not conclude there but was subject matter of appeal, before the Asst. Commissioner and there is an affidavit indicating that it was subject matter of some other proceedings in a revision pending in RA.No.11/2008-09 before the Deputy Commissioner etc., and the present cause for the writ petition being the Deputy Commissioner having issued directions for re-survey, which is sought to be prevented at all costs by the writ petitioner through the present writ petition! 3. The 4th respondent having entered caveat, this Court granted interim order staying the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of the order dated 22.09.2010 copy produced as Annexure-V to the petition, in terms of the order dated 15.12.2010 reading as under:- ‘BSPJ: 15.12.2010 Learned Addl. Government Advocate takes notice for R-1 to R-3. Counsel for R-4 who has entered caveat seeks time to file objections. Government Advocate takes notice for R-1 to R-3. Counsel for R-4 who has entered caveat seeks time to file objections. Time is granted till 13.1.2011 to file statement of objections if any, until then action pursuant to the impugned order vide Annexure-V is stayed till the next date of hearing.” 4. The matter has come up for further orders at the instance of the petitioner. 5. I have heard the most spirited arguments of Sri G.R.Anantharaman, learned counsel for the petitioner at very great length, much beyond perhaps it deserves for admission in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. I have also heard Mr.R.Om Kumar, learned AGA for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.N.K.Girish, learned counsel for the caveator – 4th respondent. 6. First and foremost contention of Sri G.R.Anantharaman, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner has virtually sat in judgment over the orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ litigation between the parties, particularly, the order passed in W.P.No.8682/2006 and affirmed in writ appeal by a Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.1270/2007, copy produced as Annexure-R1 and this order not having been found fit for a special leave to be granted, it was the bounden duty of the Deputy Commissioner to have respected these orders and not order for a second survey of the disputed land between the parties in terms of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in a revision petition filed by the 4th respondent which is virtually one amounting to permit the revenue authorities to sit in judgment over the orders passed by this Court and therefore, the order impugned at Annexure-V should be quashed and the revenue authorities restrained from going back on the determination as was done by the Tahsildar in terms of the report submitted to this court, copy produced as Annexure-N1. 7. On the other hand, Sri R. Om Kumar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 points out that the original grant itself was in favour of one Mahadeve Gowda with reference to the record particularly, Annexure-V the impugned order, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has noticed as under:- OTHER LANGUAGE 8. 7. On the other hand, Sri R. Om Kumar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 points out that the original grant itself was in favour of one Mahadeve Gowda with reference to the record particularly, Annexure-V the impugned order, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has noticed as under:- OTHER LANGUAGE 8. That on a physical verification of the subject lands and on survey, the available land was an extent of 2 acres 7 guntas etc., but more importantly points out to the grant condition No.12 of the Grant indicating as follows:- OTHER LANGUAGE and submits that the land which had been granted by the Tahsildar assuming that it was a valid grant order only to an extent 2 acres 7 guntas though 4 acres had been mentioned as per the saguvali chit or the grant order and if availability is found to be only to this extent, there is no question of the petitioner claiming or asserting right, title interest to an extent of four acres particularly, as the petitioner is only a purchaser of the granted land and therefore, cannot claim better right, title and interest in the subject land, more than what the grantee himself had. 9. It appears that in between, civil litigation was also on between the parties and one suit in O.S.No.138/2004 at the instance of the writ petitioner for a bare injunction had not resulted in any favourable order to the petitioner as the suit came to be dismissed by judgment dated 27.2.2009 with particular observation that the very fixation of the boundaries was in the process and it was inconclusive etc. 10. Be that as it may, I find the order impugned in this petition, particularly, the order of the Deputy Commissioner for a re-survey of the disputed land and for proper fixation of the boundaries, and then to ascertain the actual availability of the land etc., cannot be considered either illegal, arbitrary or one without jurisdiction though Mr. Anantharaman, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently questioned the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities to pass such order. 11. Anantharaman, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently questioned the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities to pass such order. 11. The only question involved is, if at all is the correctness of the orders of the revenue authorities and so far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned it is undisputedly the Deputy Commissioner an higher official in the hierarchy of the revenue officials who also has suo motu revisional powers in terms of Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and no question of want of jurisdiction is involved. Neither any question of illegality is apparent on the face of the record, as the Deputy Commissioner has only directed a proper re-survey in the wake of the conflicting claims and counter claims and has directed the Tahsildar to ensure that such a e-survey is conducted and after issue of notice to all concerned, nor any question of improper procedure is involved as an order of this nature is not against any person but is definitely one for resolving the disputes between the parties, and it at all it has to be appreciated and not deprecated. 12. I do not any scope for keeping this petition on board of this Court any further for any greater examination. 13. Interim order granted earlier is vacated, and the writ petition is dismissed.