- 1 - ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.44702/2017 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN:
SRI. B.L.JANARDHANA S/O SRI.LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT HEGGALA VILLAGE NIRMALAGIRI VIRAJPET TALUK- 571 218 REP. BY HIS G.P.A HOLDER SMT. B.J.KAMALA W/O SRI. B.L.JANARDHANA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT HEGGALA VILLAGE NIRMALAGIRI, VIRAJPET TALUK – 571 218.
..PETITIONER (BY SRI.D.C.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERE – 571 201 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE SUB DIVISION, MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT- 571 201 3. THE TAHSILDAR VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218 4. THE TAHSILDAR & MEMBER SECRETARY AKRAMA SAKRAMA SAMITHI VIRJAPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.01.2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS SAME IS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is filed by one Janardana impugning the order dated 22.01.2015 in proceedings bearing No.NCR(V) 91/2013-14 on the file of 2nd respondent, namely Assistant Registrar, Revenue Sub Division, Madikeri, which is at Annexure-C.
2. The records would indicate that Saguvali Chit was secured by the petitioner in respect of 1 acre 5 guntas of land bearing Sy.No.317/P3 of Heggala village, Virajpet Taluk, on the ground that he has encroached in to said land. It is seen that saguvali chit is granted to him pursuant to the report in proceedings bearing No.TVT/NCR/53/1998-99 with reference to Patta No.227/2010-11 dated 11.3.2011. It is also stated that grant of aforesaid land was made in his favour by Akrama Sakrama Committee of Virajpet Taluk, Virajpet Hobli on 23.10.2010. Thereafter, certain discrepancies were found in the order which is referred to at discrepancy Nos.1 to 5, which are as under:
“1. PÀqÀvÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£É-50 gÀ°è éÃPÀÈw ¢£ÁAPÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢ gÀĪÀÅ¢®è .
2. CfðUÉ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå éÃPÀÈw ¸ÀASÉå (f .Dgï.£ÀA§gï) £ÀªÀÄÆ¢ gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
3. £ÀªÀÄÆ£É -50 £ÀÄß ¸À°è zÀÄÝ, £ÀªÀÄÆ£É-50gÀ Cfð éÃPÀÈw ¸À» (£ÀªÀÄÆ£É-56)gÀ°è PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
4. £ÀªÀÄÆ£É -50 gÀ°è PÁ¦ü ¥ÁèAmÉõÀ£ïUÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwUÉ CªÀPÁ±À«®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤qÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
5. CºÀªÁ®Ä vÀ:SÉÛ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.”
3. Among the said discrepancies, first one of that is application in Form No.50 does not bear the date of receipt of said application, second one is that revenue number which is referred to as GR number is not mentioned and third one is that receipt of the application in From No.50 is also not registered in the receiving register maintained for entering the applications received in Form No.5. Besides that it is also seen that grant of land for Coffee Plantation is not permissible under Form No.50 and in addition to that the other discrepancy is that the same is said to be not seen in the Demand Register.
4. It is after finding aforesaid discrepancies, the matter was referred to Assistant Commissioner of Madikeri Sub Division by the Tahsildar of Virajpet Taluk. In the said proceedings bearing No.NCR(V) 91/2013-14 the Assistant Commissioner after holding an enquiry and having found that the proceedings before the Taluka Akrama Sakrama Committee of Virajpet is erroneous and so far as granting occupancy right in favour of petitioner to the extent granted in his favour is concerned, he has passed an order to cancel the same under Rule 108 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and thereafter ordered for taking the said land clear from all encumbrances to the Government by his order dated 22.01.2015.
5. The said order is challenged by the very same Janardana, represented by his GPA holder, in his individual capacity before the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in Revenue Appeal No.120/2016-17. It is seen that simultaneously he has also approached this Court by filing this writ petition wherein he is represented by his wife Smt.Kamala as GPA holder, which is said to have executed in her favour, however the reason for issuance of GPA to his wife is not forthcoming. However, when the discrepancies as seen in the report of the Tahsildar to the Assistant Commissioner is seen with reference to manipulation which is pursued by the parties, it is clear that he is challenging the order impugned both by filing an appeal under Section 136(3) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Madikeri, in his name by himself and simultaneously by filing this writ petition through his wife as his GPA holder. This kind of conduct of the petitioner is required to be deplored, more particularly, when the order of Assistant Commissioner being just and proper on all counts. Hence, question of entertaining this writ petition does not arise. Even otherwise, when an appeal is filed by him before the Deputy Commissioner he ought not to have filed this writ petition before this Court. On that count itself, this writ petition is required to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. While doing so, the registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the 1st respondent – Deputy Commissioner before whom the appeal filed by the petitioner in RA.No.120/2016-17 is pending consideration, so that 1st respondent would look in to the same and thereafter to pass appropriate orders. Further, while dismissing this writ petition punitive cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed on the petitioner, who is appellant in RA.No.120/2016-17 before the Deputy Commissioner Madikeri, which shall be recovered by the revenue authorities from the petitioner as if it is arrears of land revenue.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-