Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1234 (KAR)

G. L. Jeevan v. Deputy Commissioner

2023-10-25

E.S.INDIRESH

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing order dtd. 10/2/2021, (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.1, confirming the order dtd. 6/10/2016 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. 2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case are that, the land bearing Sy No.55 of Kunagali village, Holalkere Taluk, measuring to an extent of 11 acres, 25 guntas, consisting of three phods Sy No.55/1 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas, Sy No.55/2, measuring 3 acres, 30 guntas and Sy No.55/3, measuring 5 acres, 27 guntas. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners are owner in possession of the land bearing Sy No.55/1, measuring 2 acres, 8 guntas, and it is stated that, revenue records stands in the name of the petitioners. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein have made an application to the respondent No.3, for Tatkal phod and measurement of land bearing Sy No.55/3 of Kunagali village, Holalkere Taluk and during the survey work, the extent of the land belonging to the petitioners and contesting respondents was considered by the revenue authorities and found discrepancy in the measurement and as such, the respondent No.3 herein, while exercising power under Sec. 9(A) (49) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ( for short, hereinafter referred to as Act), conducted spot inspection and verified the akarband and as such, arrived at a conclusion that the revenue records pertaining to entire land covered under Sy No.55 was not tallied with the revenue documents and therefore passed order dtd. 6/10/2016 (Annexure-A), rejecting the phode in respect of the entire extent of land bearing Sy No.55 (Annexure-A). The said order was challenged by the petitioners herein before the respondent No.1 herein in RA(A) No.56/2016-17 and respondent No.1 by order dtd. 10/2/2021, rejected the appeal as per order produced at Annexure-B. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented this writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri Harish N.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Harish A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Government and Sri B.M.Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. 4. Sri Harish N.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the respondent No.3, while exercising the sue motu proceedings under Sec. 9(A) of the Act, has not issued notice to the petitioners herein. 4. Sri Harish N.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the respondent No.3, while exercising the sue motu proceedings under Sec. 9(A) of the Act, has not issued notice to the petitioners herein. Therefore, he sought for interference of this Court. 4. Sri B.M.Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents refers to the suit papers produced at Annexure-C and E respectively and argued that, the suit in respect of the subject matter is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court in OS Nos.171/2017 and 173/2017 and the said suits are filed by the contesting respondents, seeking declaration with consequential relief of directing the defendants to deliver the suit schedule properties and as such, he submitted that writ petition is not maintainable in view of disputed question of facts are involved. 5. Sri Harish N.R., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-Government submitted that, the writ petition deserves to dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, land bearing Sy No.55 of Kunagali Village, Holalkere taluk, is consisting of three Phods, namely Sy Nos.55/1, 55/2 and 55/3. On careful examination of the reliefs, sought for by the plaintiff/contesting respondents in Os Nos.171 of 2017, and 173/2017, would indicate that, contesting respondents have sought for relief of declaration and consequential relief of recovery of possession against the defendants therein and undisputedly, the petitioners herein are the defendants in the said suits. In that view of the matter, though the learned counsel appearing for the parties contended that, no notice has been issued by the original authority while passing order vide Annexure-A, however, the rights of the parties would be crystallized in declaratory suits mentioned above. In that view of the matter, as the suits are pending consideration between the petitioners and contesting respondents, before the competent authority in respect of the subject matter of the land bearing Sy No.55 of Kunagali village, Holalkere Taluk, and the finding recorded by the respondent No.1 herein referring to the suits as well as the finding recorded that the measurement made during the survey is not tallying with the land records, I am of the view that, Civil Court alone shall adjudicate the rights of the parties in the pending suits. In that view of the matter, as the petitioners herein are the contesting defendants in the aforementioned suits, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.