IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.5004 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SUNDEEP AURORA SON OF KRISHNA KUMAR AURORA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT ADARSH NO.411, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU -560 034.
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.NOSHIR B.SHROFF SON OF BUJOR D SHROFF AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT PHARMED GARDENS WHITEFIELD ROAD BENGALURU -560 048. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. K N PHANIDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU -560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU -560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU -560 001.
4. MUNILAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF LATE SEENAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.82 PRAKASH BUILDING PRAGATHINAGAR ELECTRONIC CITY POST BENGALURU -560 100.
5. Y KRISHNA MURTHY SON OF YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT S.BINGIPURA DAKHLE PONDU VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.
6. N NAGARAJA REDDY SON OF LATE SRI.NARASIMHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.28 14TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN ROAD B.T.M. 2ND STAGE BENGALURU -560 076.
7. SRI N K GOPALAN SON OF LATE N K KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2 & 3 HARIHARA NILAYA, 4TH CROSS MUNESWARA NAGAR BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 076. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. R ANITHA, HCGP. FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1-3) 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.30937/2015 DATED 02/11/2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.11.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30937 of 2015 relegating the petitioner to the Civil Court for appropriate remedies, the writ petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are patently illegal. That the material on record clearly indicates that the dispute is with regard to right, title and interest over the lands in question.
3. However, on hearing the learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The learned Single Judge was of the view, that it was for the petitioner to approach the competent authority for necessary declaration with regard to right, title and interest and based on the same, the name of the petitioner could be appropriately entered in the revenue records. This we find is an appropriate remedy required to be adopted by the appellant. The dispute with regard to right, title and interest would necessarily have to be agitated before the Civil Court. It is not for this Court to go into such aspects in this appeal. Hence, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for any interference. There is a delay of 377 days in filing the appeal. It would be futile to issue notice on I.A.No.1 of 2016 filed to condone the delay. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms