Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.51348 OF 2017 (KLR – RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SMT. CHANNAMMA, W/O RANGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT C/O HONNAIAH, HOTTEGOWDANA DODDI, NIDAGHATTA POST, ATAGOOR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADV.) AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT FOR THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & OFFICIATING DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571 401.
3. THE TAHASILDAR, MADDUR TALUK, MADDUR – 571 428, MANDYA DISTRICT.
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, RE-SURVEY OFFICE, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.
5. THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT OF LAND SURVEY, TALUKA OFFICE, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.
6. SRI.MARIAPPA, S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT VADDARA DODDI, NIDAGHATTA, ATAGOOR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.
7. SMT. SHANTHAMMA, W/O MARIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT VADDARA DODDI, NIDAGHATTA, ATAGOOR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.
8. SMT. KAMALAMMA, W/O LATE Y.M.BHOJANNA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT HUNASEMARADA DODDI, RUDRAKSHIPURA POST, ATAGOOR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.
9. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KESTUR POLICE STATION, KESTURU, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 – 5 & 9; SRI.M.BABU, ADV., FOR R8;
R6 AND R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY R-3 IN CR.NO.33/15-16 DATED 02.11.2017 AT ANNEXURE – R AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner has sought for quashing of the communication dated 02.11.2017 (Annexure-R) forwarded by 3rd respondent to the jurisdictional police namely, 9th respondent whereunder he has sought for protection to enable 8th respondent to put up barbed wire fencing.
2. Dispute in this petition revolves around land bearing Sy.No.35 (old) which is said to have been purchased by petitioner in an extent of 2 acres out of 7 acres 1 gunta situated at Nidaghatta village, Atagoor Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District under a registered sale deed dated 15.10.1988 from respondent Nos.6 and 7. In the said sale deed, a recital is found to provide the purchaser a cart road as approach road for the remaining lands. Pursuant to sale deed, revenue records have been mutated in the name of petitioner in respect of the property purchased by her. Third respondent surveyed the entire land bearing Sy.No.35 by assigning new survey numbers in terms of the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner. Said order of phodi durasti resulted in reduction of petitioner’s land to an extent of 2 ¾ guntas. Hence, petitioner filed an appeal before second respondent in appeal No.11/16-17. Said appeal though came to be dismissed, it was observed by the appellate authority that on account of re-survey No.5, RTC entries having been made jointly in the name of different land owners relating to an extent of 7 acres; further, phodi durasti is required to be made by the Tahsildar and as such, directed third respondent to re-conduct phodi durasti in association with the Surveyor, Maddur Taluk. Accordingly, following direction came to be issued:
“ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ DvÀUÀÆgÀÄ ºÉÆç½ ¤qÀWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA. RS 5 gÀ Dgï.n.¹AiÀÄ°è dAnAiÀiÁV ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ, E£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃ¥Àðr¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï, ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÀÆzÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (PÁ.¤.) ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄgÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ.”
Under the guise of implementing direction so issued under order dated 29.7.2017, third respondent has issued the impugned communication dated 2.11.2017 Annexure-R to the jurisdictional police i.e., 9th respondent for providing police protection. Hence, this writ petition.
3. It is the contention of Sri.Janardhana.G, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that 3rd respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing direction to the jurisdictional police to provide protection to 8th respondent to enable him to fence the land to an extent of 40’ x 300’ belonging to the petitioner even though boundaries and measurements are different and respondents 6 to 8 cannot have any claim over said land.
4. Per-contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that as per phodi durasthi made, parties would be entitled to protect their possession, as such, impugned communication has been issued by the 3rd respondent.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of impugned order dated 29.7.2017 Annexure-Q it would clearly disclose that phodi durasthi work which was carried out by the Assistant Director of Land Records came to be set aside by 2nd respondent herein and having dismissed the appeal has made an observation that further bifurcation is required to be made by the jurisdictional Tahsildar for implementing the order of the Assistant Director of Land Records and accordingly, directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to undertake the exercise of bifurcating the lands. Even before such an exercise could be undertaken, 3rd respondent has sought to implement the order dated 12.1.2005 by issuing direction to the jurisdictional police to provide police protection. If there is any inter se dispute between the private parties, the jurisdictional Tahsildar would not get jurisdiction to either seek for police help or to issue direction for implementation of the order passed under the Act and it is for the parties to take steps in accordance with law. As such, impugned communication dated 2.11.2017 Annexure-R would not be sustainable in law. Hence, the following:
Next >