IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.5287 OF 2011 (KLR – RR/SUR) BETWEEN SRI. VEEREGOWDA, SON OF LATE VEEREGOWDA @ KENCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. L.M.RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. SHIVANEGOWDA @ KENCHAIAH, SON OF LATE MAREGOWDA @ CHIKKAHYDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, II CLASS MECHANIC, BESCOM OFFICE, BLOCK – A, SAHAKARANAGARA, BENGALURU.
2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.S.RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R2 - 4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.15854 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR) DATED 25.05.2011.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH. J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.05.2011 in Writ Petition No.15854 of 2011 in dismissing the petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, the present appeal is filed by the writ petitioner.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in passing the impugned order.
3. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The determination of the rights of the parties and as to whose name figures and in what capacity, are all matters to be decided by the Civil Court. Since there is a dispute even with regard to the status of each one of the parties, such a status cannot be determined by the Revenue Authorities. It is the Civil Court alone which can record a finding on the same. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition.
4. There is no good ground to entertain the writ appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed with a liberty to the appellant to approach the Civil Court, in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Srl.