IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NOs.30500-30501 OF 2019(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SHRI. K.T. VIJAYA KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI. T. THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/O NO.1005, 1ST MAIN III BLOCK, III STAGE III PHASE, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU – 560 085 (BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR SURVEY SETTLEMENT & LAND RECORDS K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, HEAD OFFICE K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, RAMANAGARA DISTRCT RAMANAGARA TOWN – 571 112.
4. ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS RAMANAGARA DISTRCT RAMANAGARA TOWN – 571 112.
5. SMT. R. URMILA W/O H. RANGANATH FLAT NO.103, B-BLOCK 1ST FLOOR, “NANDISH PARK ... PETITIONER APARTMENTS”, MUTHYALANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 054.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA., AGA FOR R-1 TO 4) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED:11.02.2019 AND ANNEXURE-B DATED:03.04.2019 AND CARRY-OUT THE PHOD WORK IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE-A LAND AS PER THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Shanmukhappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner claims to have acquired title to the land bearing Sy.No.62/1 (new no.62/5) measuring 5 acres under a partition deed dated 15.01.1970 (Annexure-C), which was subsequently exchanged under Exchange deed dated 23.03.1971. By virtue of petitioner acquiring title to Schedule ‘A’ property as described in the petition, petitioner is said to have submitted an application for mutation of revenue records in his favour and accordingly, under M.R.No.7/1996-97 revenue records came to be mutated in the name of petitioner.
3. However, on account of fifth respondent having encroached the land to an extent of 20 guntas on the northern side of Schedule ‘A’ property, petitioner filed a suit O.S.No.138/2017 before Senior Civil Judge, Magadi, seeking declaration of his title to Schedule ‘A’ property as well as possession of encroached portion from fifth respondent. Said suit is pending.
4. Petitioner is said to have made a request to fourth respondent to measure Schedule ‘A’ property and to fix boundaries according to title deeds and based on the said representation, fourth respondent ordered for conducting phodi and fixing boundaries in respect of Schedule ‘A’ property. Accordingly surveyors conducted the measurement of land belonging to both petitioner and fifth respondent and found that fifth respondent had encroached to an extent of 20 guntas of land of Schedule ‘A’ property on the northern side. However, it is the grievance of petitioner that surveyor who had carried out the work of phodi had tampered with mahazar report in the process and had drawn the boundaries erroneously to show undue benefit to fifth respondent and alleging fraud has been committed by inserting additional lines by overwriting on the signature subsequent to obtaining petitioner’s signature to make it appear as though petitioner has consented to exclude a portion of land encroached by fifth respondent, which is not in accordance with partition deed entered into between petitioner and his family members and thereby he had failed to carryout phodi work in a proper and effective manner.
5. It is also the grievance of petitioner that first respondent despite noticing overwriting and tampering of records, did not take action on representation submitted by petitioner on 03.04.2019 (Annexure-B) and has issued an endorsement on 06.05.2019 (Annexure-L) informing the petitioner to file an appeal before competent authority for rectification of boundaries drawn by surveyor, by overlooking the crucial fact that said authority itself being empowered to rectify the same and same has not been carried out. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.
6. Having heard Sri.Shanmukhappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the endorsement issued to the petitioner. If at all, petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, petitioner would be at liberty to file appeal before the competent authority and insofar as, issue of fraud or insertion of any sentences in the mahazar is concerned, this Court refrains itself from expressing any opinion in that regard, particularly in the background of fact that matter is seized by the Civil Court with regard to claim of petitioner for possession of disputed 20 guntas. As such reserving liberty to petitioner to urge all grounds including the grounds urged in pending suit O.S.No.138/2017 before the appellate authority, this petition stands disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE DR