IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI W.P. No.14905/2015 (LB-RES) BETWEEN R.K. SRIDHAR S/O K KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 3RD MAIN JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570012 ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. SANDHYA D., ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD MYSURU-570001 2. SRI MAMBALLI PAPEGOWDA S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.488, 2ND STAGE SIDDARTHA NAGAR THYAGA MARGA MYSURU-570011 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN FAVOUR OF R-2 TO ISSUE RECTIFICATION DEED DATED 11.03.2015 AT ANNX-L IS OBTAINED VIDE DATED 04.04.2015 FROM RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:
“ a) Issue Writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 to issue rectification deed dated 11.03.2015 at Annexure-L is obtained in No.My.N.P./VK-4/M.H.136/2015-16 dated 04.04.2016 from Right to Information Act.
b) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka deems fit into the facts and circumstances of this case.”
2. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is regarding allotment of site Nos.881 and 882 in the layout known as I Phase, Vijayanagar in Mysore by respondent No.1 - Mysore Urban Development Authority (‘MUDA’ for short). The case has a chequered history, but the fact remains that there are also two civil suits between these two private parties pending in two different trial Courts in Mysore viz., I) O.S.No.129/2015 (pending on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysore.
II) O.S.No.1141/2009 (pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Mysore.
3. In view of the pendency of the civil dispute between the parties, the dispute relating to the boundary or measurement of the actual land in possession of both the parties can only be raised and determined before the competent trial Court and not in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Therefore, the present petition is held not maintainable and the parties are relegated back to the said civil suits.
5. The District Judge, Mysore, is directed to consolidate the trial of the aforesaid two suits and assign it to one Court for disposal of both the suits simultaneously to avoid any conflict of decrees in the said matter and the trial Court will also implead MUDA as one of the defendants, in both the suits.
The petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms