IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1796/2016 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN:
GIRIYAPPA GOWDA, S/O.CHENNAPPA GOWDA, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT POLYA HOUSE KABAKA HOUSE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574201. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M. ADV.) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALORE, D.K-575001, MANGALURU.
2. SRI.RAVINDRA, S/O.JINNAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT POLYA HOUSE KABAKA HOUSE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574201. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAXMINARAYANA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN. B.S. ADVOCATE, FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.14654 OF 2016 DATED 04/04/2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH I.A. 1 OF 2016 THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel on I.A.1 of 2016 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons assigned in the application, delay of 46 days in filing is condoned. I.A.1 of 2016 is allowed.
2. At request of learned counsels appearing for the appellant and respondent No.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, matter is heard finally.
3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, petitioner therein has filed this appeal.
4. Apparently, the case of the appellant is that the respondent No.2 has submitted a wrong sketch to the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter obtained orders of conversion. The learned Single Judge in view of the fact that there is already a pending case filed by the petitioner/appellant before the Deputy Commissioner and the irregularity with respect to the property in question cannot be a subject matter of a writ petition, did not interfere with the impugned order.
5. On hearing learned counsels and considering the impugned order, we do not find any ground to interfere with the same. The contention of the appellant is that there has been a wrong sketch drawn which includes the property of the petitioner. Writ court cannot declare the status or conversion of the property in question. The order of conversion cannot be agitated in a writ petition. It is Civil Court alone which has to do it. Therefore the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
sd/- sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE sac* CT-RG