IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22174 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI BABU S/O.SOORA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS AGRICULTURIST BY VOCATION & R/AT HOOCHARABETTU VADERAHOBLI VILLAGE KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAKSHITH KUMAR FOR SRI AJITH NAND SHETTY, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL UDUPI-576 104 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPUR SUB-DIVISION KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201 4. TAHSILDAR KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201 5. REVENUE INSPECTOR KUNDAPURA HOBLI KUNDAPURA TALUK AND POST UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201 6. SMT.K.JYOTHI W/O.RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NANAPPA SHEREGARA’S HOUSE, KODI KUNDAPURA KASABA VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201 7. SRI S.S.MADHUKESHWAR MAJOR DESIGNATED AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISION KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R7 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.05.2019 (ANNEXURE-P) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3-AUTHORITY IN REVENUE APPEAL NO.283/2019.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of learned Advocates, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri Rakshith Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ajith Anand Shetty, for petitioner, Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, Sri Rajesh Shetty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 and respondent No.7 is served and unrepresented.
3. Sixth respondent herein had purchased 12 cents of land bearing survey No.75/1 situated at Vaderahobli Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District under a registered sale deed dated 25.05.2015 and on purchasing said property, revenue records came to be mutated in the name of sixth respondent.
4. For the purpose of putting up a residential building, sixth respondent is said to have submitted an application to 2nd respondent and obtained statutory approvals and khatha came to be issued to an extent of 8.33 cents out of 9 cents which had been converted for residential purpose by the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District. However, 0.67 cents land was excluded for the purpose of widening of road. Hence, sixth respondent is said to have commenced construction of building in an extent of 8.33 cents leaving statutory margin for formation of road and at that point of time, petitioner is said to have objected for sixth respondent putting up construction. As could be seen from pleadings of parties, several civil litigations were also pending and jurisdictional Surveyor had conducted survey by preparing a survey sketch as per Annexure-B which would clearly indicate extent of 12 cents of land has been purchased by sixth respondent and extent of area in which sixth respondent is putting up construction is also depicted thereunder. However, petitioner herein claiming that sixth respondent has occupied public road had set up resistance for construction being put up by sixth respondent as already noticed hereinabove and being aggrieved by revenue entries made, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and sought for restraining sixth respondent from putting up construction. Though initially interim prayer was granted, same was vacated on 29.04.2019. Third respondent-authority had directed ADLR, Kundapura to conduct inspection and submit a report and after considering records placed before the Appellate Authority namely, third respondent, appeal filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. Said authority has now proceeded to adjudicate the matter and as such, petitioner is expressing a reasonable doubt about neutrality of third respondent-authority and is also said to have filed an application to keep the proceedings in abeyance as per application dated 20.05.2019 (Annexure- O). However, third respondent by order dated 20.05.2019 has rejected the appeal vide Annexure-P and as such, petitioner is present before this Court.
5. Today, learned counsel appearing for sixth respondent has filed an affidavit of sixth respondent undertaking thereunder that she will put up construction in an extent of 8.33 cents of land excluding 0.67 cents reserved for widening of road, for which, petitioner would have no objection as stated by learned counsel appearing for petitioner. The undertaking so given by sixth respondent reads thus:
“2) I submit that I am the absolute owner of the land bearing S.No.75-1 extent 12 cents of Voderhobli Village, Kundapura Taluk on Purchase Right. I submit that out of the said extent of 12 cents an extent of 09 cents has been converted for residential purpose by the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District. I submit that the TMC, Kundapura has issued Khatha pertaining to 08-33 cents of land out of aforesaid 09 cents of land, excluding 0-67 cent for widening the road. I submit that thus out of 12 cents of land Khatha pertaining to 08-33 cents of land has been done in my favour as per law. I submit that the TMC, Kundapura has issued Building Licence in my favour to construct building over the aforesaid 08-33 cents of land after leaving the statutory margin as per the rules. I submit that I have started to construct building in my said house site excluding the land reserved for widening the road and also excluding the statutory margin as per the rules. I submit that I will not construct any building over the road or the land reserved for widening the road and also over the statutory margin. I submit that I will strictly follow the conditions put forth by the TMC, Kundapura in the Building Licence issued to me.”
In the light of undertaking given by sixth respondent, question of interfering with the impugned order does not arise. Placing the same on record, petition stands disposed of accordingly.
In view of disposal of writ petition, IA.No.1/2019 for vacating of stay filed by 6th respondent does not survive for consideration and same stands disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE LB