Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri V R Natashekar vs The Deputy Commissioner Chikkamagaluru And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|20 March, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.23332 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI V.R. NATASHEKAR S/O LATE V. RAMAKRISHNA BHAT HANDE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O MENASE VILLAGE BHARATI NAGAR POST SRINGERI TALUK-577139 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. D.C. JAGADEESH - ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & TECHNICAL ASSISTANT CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577101.
3. THE TAHSILDAR SRINGERI TALUK SRINGERI – 577139 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH DODDERI – AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.02.2017 VIDE ANNEX- B ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AS THE SAME IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner herein is said to be purchaser of 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.33 of Menase village, Sringeri Taluk, Chikkamagalur District. Admittedly, the said extent was granted in favour of N.M. Bhide, his predecessor in title to the said land from whom the petitioner has purchased it.
2. The grievance of petitioner is that, though 5 guntas was granted in favour of his predecessor in title, phodi and durasthi is conducted only to an extent of 3 guntas and for the remaining 2 guntas, the same is not conducted. Hence, he approached the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner by filing a Revision Application No.24/2015-16, where it is observed that though 5 guntas was granted in favour of petitioner’s predecessor in title, when phodi was taken up on the basis of an application filed by him, he is said to have indicated to the authorities that 2 guntas of land on the backside of his property is at a higher level and under the occupation of his neighbour. Therefore, the phodi work could be confined to only 3 guntas of land in which he has constructed the house.
3. It is stated that in the aforesaid circumstances, phodi and durasthi is conducted to an extent of 3 guntas in Sy.No.33 of Menase village in favour of the petitioner’s predecessor in title and subsequently which is registered in his name.
4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said observation is erroneous and that an extent of 2 guntas of land is available right behind the property of the petitioner, which he purchased from the original grantee and that he has levelled the same at his cost and thereafter he has put up a shed on the said portion and also he has planted areca and coconut plants. Therefore, the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 7.2.2017 in Revision Application No.24/2015-16 should be quashed and thereafter necessary direction should be given to him in this regard. While doing so, he would also bring to the notice of this court that though the phodi work was conducted to an extent of 3 guntas in favour of the petitioner’s predecessor in title, the grant which was made to an extent of 5 guntas is not altered and grant to an extent of 2 guntas is not cancelled. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel contends that the request of petitioner could be considered even now.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned AGA, this court is of the considered opinion that if grant of 2 guntas of land in favour of the petitioner’s predecessor is not cancelled, it is open for the authorities to consider conducting phodi and durasthi work for remaining extent of 2 guntas in favour of the petitioner and the same shall be complied within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. In the event of anybody else squatting in that portion, it is open for the petitioner to initiate necessary proceedings before the Civil Court and after taking vacant possession of the same, he can approach the authorities for conducting phodi and durasthi work.
Sd/- JUDGE KS
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri V R Natashekar vs The Deputy Commissioner Chikkamagaluru And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
20 March, 2019
Judges
  • S N Satyanarayana