IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT APPEAL NO.69/2015 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI GANESHAPPA SON OF BASAVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE RESIDING AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE-577131 SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201 PIN CODE – 577201. … APPELLANT (BY SRI H. K. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDI BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN:577201.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BY ITS TECHNICAL ASST. TO THE DC EX-OFFICIO FOR LAND RECORDS SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, SHIKARIPUR SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201.
5. SRI SHIVANAGOWDA S/O ERAPPA NADLARE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE – 577131, SHIKARIPURA TALUK – 577427, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577201. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, SRI S. SIDDALINGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.51469/2014 DATED 27.11.2014.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH,J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2014, passed in Writ Petition No.51469 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge, in dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner therein has filed this appeal.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his father purchased the western half portion of the land in Survey No.162 of Mallenahalli Village, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamogga District, on 04.08.1958. That on the same day of purchase, the eastern half portion of the said land was purchased by one Chennavva. It is his case that the total extent of the land measures 7 acres, 12 guntas. He further submits that on 20.06.1960, survey was conducted, the lands were phoded and demarcated. The father of the petitioner was allotted Survey No.162/1, measuring 4 acres, 18 guntas and Survey No.162/2 measuring 2 acres, 36 guntas was allotted to Chennavva. Thereafter, the said Chennavva and her adopted son sold eastern portion of their property to respondent No.5 herein.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in upholding the order passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein. He submits that there is a delay in approaching this Court by respondent No.5. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents disputes the said contention and contends that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. On hearing learned Counsels, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal. Admittedly, the entire land in Survey No.162, measures 7 acres 12 guntas, out of which, the vendor has sold the eastern half portion of the land to one Chennavva and the western half portion to the father of the petitioner. If that is so, each of them have purchased 3 acres, 26 guntas of land. Hence, the petitioner has no right, title or interest to claim possession over the land to an extent of 4 acres, 18 guntas as claimed by him. Further, the petitioner has failed to prove as to how he claims possession over the land of 4 acres, 18 guntas of land. When the petitioner himself has stated that he has purchased only the western half portion of the land in Survey No.162, which totally measures 7 acres 12 guntas, the portion of the encroached land would not enure to his benefit.
The extent of the land measuring 3 acres, 26 guntas purchased by him requires protection and nothing more than that. Hence, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was justified in upholding the order of respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the well-considered order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE HR