IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA W.P.NO.11553/2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. H.G. HARISH S/O LATE H.V. GOVINDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 2. SMT. UMADEVI W/O. LATE H.V. GOVINDARAJU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. H.G. MONISH S/O. LATE GOVINDARAJU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ALL ARE RESIDING AT ANKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJA L., ADV.) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
2. ASSISTANT DISTRICT TECHNICAL OFFICER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
3. THE LAND SURVEYOR MANDYA MANDYA TALUK REP. BY SRI. NIRANJANKUMAR MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
4. THE TAHSILDAR MANDYA MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
5. H.S. ASHA AGED 34 YEARS W/O. B. RAGHAVENDRA D/O. V. SHIVARAM RESIDING AT HANAKERE GRAMA MANDYA MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI R. PRAMOD, ADV. FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2016 PASSED BY THE R1 IN APPEAL NO.[SURVEY DEPARTMENT] 13/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-M.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is filed impugning the order dated 17.12.2016 passed by the first respondent- Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, in Appeal No.13/2015 dated 17.12.2016 vide Annexure-“M”.
2. Admittedly, petitioners 1 to 3 and respondent No.5 are the members of the same family i.e. petitioners 1 and 3 are children of late H.V. Govindaraju Shetty and petitioner No.2 is his widow whereas respondent No.5-H.S. Asha is the daughter of one V. Sivaram, who is none other than the brother of late H.V. Govindaraju Shetty, thereby indicating that petitioners 1 and 3 and respondent No.5 are first cousins. The dispute between them is with reference to their title to the land bearing Survey No.15/2 of Hanakere Village, Mandya Taluk, where each one of them are claiming certain extent of land. When the matter stood thus, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner accepting the title of respondent No.5 to the entire extent was subject- matter of challenge before this Court. However during the pendency of this writ petition, a joint memo is filed by the petitioners 1 to 3 and respondent No.5 identifying clearly the extent of land which has fallen to their share in Sy.No.15/2 of Halasagere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya Taluk and District. The said joint memo is signed by petitioners 1 to 3 and respondent No.5, which is counter signed by their respective counsel. Same is taken on record.
3. In terms of the joint memo, the title of the petitioners 1 to 3 together is accepted as 9 guntas in Survey No.15/2 with boundaries as stated at Item No.1 of the joint memo and insofar as respondent No.5 is concerned, her title to the property is also restricted to 9 guntas in the aforesaid survey number with boundaries as stated at Item No.2 of the joint memo.
4. With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of. While doing so, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No.13/2015 dated 17.12.2016 in accepting the title of respondent No.5 to the entire extent stands modified to the extent the parties have settled the dispute in terms of the joint memo.
5. All the parties who are present before the Court are directed to affix their signatures to the order sheet which shall be identified by their respective counsel.
6. Learned AGA is permitted to file memo of appearance in two weeks.
*alb/-.
Sd/- JUDGE