Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 10 (KAR)

Chandrahasa Rai v. Deputy Commissioner

2022-01-03

R.DEVDAS

body2022
JUDGMENT R.DEVDAS, J. - The petitioner herein is aggrieved by an order dtd. 12/6/2015 passed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner in a revision filed by the petitioner herein. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that while an order of regularization of unauthorized occupation was passed by the Tahsildar, Puttur, dtd. 5/8/2002 in favour of respondent No.2 herein, although the grant was made in respect of Sy.Nos.24/1P2 measuring 3.18 acres and Sy.No.132/2A5P measuring 0.08 acres, however, while fixing the boundaries, a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner herein in Sy.Nos.22/6A 8B, 9B, 10A has been overlapped in the sketch drawn by the authorities and while settling the phodi. In this regard, the petitioner raised a dispute by way of a revision under Sec. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, challenging the orders passed by the Tahsildar in the matter of settlement of phodi and fixing the boundaries consequent to the grant made in favour of the second respondent herein. 3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner has not considered the contentions raised at the hands of the petitioner herein. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No.2 and the learned AGA and on perusal of the petition papers, this Court finds that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly considered the submission at the hands of the second respondent herein. 5. The claim made by the petitioner in respect of the portion of the property in Sy.Nos.22/6A, 8B, 9B, 10A which are kumki lands, is under a gift deed said to have been executed by one Smt.Thungamma. However, the said Thungamma has cancelled gift deed by executing a cancellation deed No.2090/13-14 dtd. 8/8/2013. This aspect of the matter has not been contravened at the hands of the petitioner herein. Moreover, it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has filed an original suit which is still pending consideration before the competent Civil Court. 6. Consequently, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 8/8/2013. This aspect of the matter has not been contravened at the hands of the petitioner herein. Moreover, it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has filed an original suit which is still pending consideration before the competent Civil Court. 6. Consequently, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Needless to observe that if the petitioner succeeds in the original suit and any judgment is passed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the lands in question, the revenue authorities are bound to consider the judgment and decree that could be drawn in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.