IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.997 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI V. NAGENDRA SON OF LATE VENKATRAMAIAH V, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.180, DEVIKERE STREET, CHAMUNDI HILLS, MYSURU-570 010.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI K.N. SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE, CHAMUNDI HILL, MYSURU-570 010.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570 010.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSURU SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU-570 010.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.3843 OF 2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 NOT TO ENCROACH UPON THE ROAD WHICH IS EXISTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCESS BY THE APPELLANT.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 26.02.2018, passed in Writ Petition No.3843 of 2018, dismissing the petition, the writ petitioner has filed the present petition.
2. Sri.Vivek S. Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant’s counsel contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. That the finding that the appellant has no civil right over the piece of land in question is an inappropriate observation. Furthermore, the subsequent report furnished by the Deputy Commissioner has since been negated by the Government, the appellant may be permitted to challenge the same in accordance with law.
3. On hearing learned counsels and in view of the submission made, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for. At para Nos.7 and 10, of the learned Single Judge’s order, it is observed that there is not even a civil right left over the said land in question. Assuming that the petitioner had no civil right over the land in question, it was for the appropriate civil court to decide the same with regard to the civil rights of the parties. Therefore, the observations made at para-7 and 10 of the order of the learned Single Judge is deleted.
4. With regard to the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner and the subsequent negation of the same by the Government, are matters which the appellant has liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law. Hence, we find no ground to entertain this appeal. The writ appeal is disposed off with the aforesaid observations. The costs imposed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ