IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.17345 OF 2011 (KLR – RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SRI. J.T. NAGARAJA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA UPADHYA AGED 53 YEARS RESIDING AT JANAGALU HARIHARAPURA VILLAGE AND POST KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.S.RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI H.S.SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101 2. THE TAHASILDAR KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 126 3. THE SUPERVISOR TALUK SURVEY OFFICE KOPPA, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
4. H. MURALIDHARA S/O H.S. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 5. H.S. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE SEETHAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 4 AND 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF HORAKUDIGE SRINGERI ROAD HARIHARAPURA POST KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 120 6. ABDUL KHADER (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HIS LR ABDUL AKBER ALI MAJOR IN AGE SRINGERI ROAD HARIHARAPURA, KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 120 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 – R3;
SRI. M.S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (ABSENT); R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHARA DATED 26.06.2008 PASSED BY THE R2, ON THE VILLAGE MAP AS PER ANNEXURE – S.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The case of the petitioner is that 4 acres of land in Sy.No.98 of Hariharapura Village, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagalur District was granted to his mother in 1983. She died in 1988. The petitioner succeeded to the same. In the year 2008, Respondents No.4 and 5 attempted to disturb his peaceful possession of the property in question. Thereafter, petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.23/2008 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppa seeking for a decree of permanent injunction against them. The same was decreed in the year 2010 against Respondents No.4 and 5. Thereafter, the second respondent/Tahsildar has altered the village map by indicating the change of certain properties therein. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahsildar, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner which was rejected. Hence, this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that without notice, the change has been made. The petitioner is a lawful owner in possession of the lands in Sy.No.98, which was subsequently re-numbered as Sy.No.291. The interference presently is with Sy.No.291. Without notice, the same has been changed and hence, interference is called for.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 disputes the same. The other respondents are absent.
4. On hearing learned counsel’s, I’am of the view that appropriate relief is called for. Substantial procedure has been envisaged under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act with regard to change of boundary and boundary marks as enunciated in Chapter XII and XIII. The Authorities would necessarily have to comply with the requirements of law. It is apparent that the procedures under the Act have not been complied with. Furthermore, even the change sought to be made by the Tahsildar, is without notice to the petitioner. Hence, on that ground also, the impugned corrections made by the Tahsildar requires to be set aside.
5. Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed. The shara dated 26.06.2008 passed by the second respondent/Tahsildar on the village map as well as the order dated 22.02.2011 passed by the first respondent/Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.26 of 2008-09 are quashed. However, liberty is granted to the Authorities to effect changes provided it is in strict compliance of the law pertaining to the said issue.
SD/- JUDGE dh