IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION No.49666 OF 2016 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN SRI M.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE N. DODDAMUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT TALUK OFFICE ROAD, MALUR TOWN, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE) AND 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR LAND RECORDS O/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101 3. ASST. DIRECTOR FOR LAND RECORDS O/O ASST. COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101 4. THASILDHAR O/O THASILDHAR, MALUR TALUK, ` KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130 5. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE DODDASIDDAPPA, DYAPASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTHESH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 4, SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI D.K.ROHITH, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 12.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS AT ANNEXURES-F1, F2 AND F3 DATED 01.01.2016, 30.04.2016, 12.07.2016 RESPECTIVELY AND TO DISPOSE THE PROCEEDINGS IN LND CR 59/15-16 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner seeks to challenge the notice dated 12.09.2016, vide Annexure ‘H’ issued by the respondent No.3, who intends to do a survey of the land in dispute. The same is questioned by the petitioner on the ground that respondent No.5 does not have any valid title. That there are bogus documents and that there is a collusion with the revenue authorities. The same is disputed by the other side.
2. On hearing learned counsels I’am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. What has been challenged herein is only a preparation of the survey to be done by the concerned authority. The same cannot be objected to. In case the same runs contrary to the records or the title or any other reason, the petitioner is very well entitled to challenge the same. However, to question the survey that is called for, is wholly inappropriate. Hence, I find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned notice.
The petition is rejected.
The pending I.A. stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE sma