Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 827 (KAR)

Kshama Hegde v. State of Karnataka

2015-07-29

B.V.NAGARATHNA, SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE

body2015
JUDGMENT : Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Actg. C.J.- These are appeals against the judgment and order dated June 15, 2015 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Miss Kshama Hegde and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others, Writ Petition Nos. 42517 and 42518 of 2014. 2. A suo motu proceeding was initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Kundapura Sub-Division, Udupi District, under sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. An order was passed. We are informed that no opportunity was granted to the writ petitioners before passing of the order by the Assistant Commissioner. 3. The writ petitioners preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, curiously, held that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to initiate proceeding under sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the said Act, but held that as the order was passed under good intention only, the order would not be interfered with. 5. The writ petitions against such an order of the Deputy Commissioner were, also, disposed of by relegating the parties to the Civil Court. 6. We feel that when there is a serious dispute as to the title of the property in question, it is better that the writ petitioners should approach the Civil Court for declaration of their right, title and interest in relation to the property in question. 7. We clarify that the Civil Court, if approached, shall not be influenced by the orders passed either by the Assistant Commissioner or by the Deputy Commissioner and shall decide the issue of title involved in the suit in accordance with law and independently. 8. We are passing this direction, particularly, because under sub-section (3) of Section 67 of the said Act, a person, who is aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (2) of Section 67, is authorised to institute a civil suit. 9. We express no opinion on the merits. 10. The writ appeals stand disposed of. 11. In view of the disposal of the writ appeals, all interlocutory applications become infructuous and those are, also, disposed of. 12. We make no order as to costs.