IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.32323 of 2018 (KLR – RES) BETWEEN:
SHRI. UDANESHWARA BHAT S/O M.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NOW RESIDING AT SS VIHAR ALIKE VILLAGE, VITTAL KASABA BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT – 574 235.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALORE, D.K. – 575 001.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT – 575 001.
3. LAND GRANT COMMITTEE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THASILDAR BANTWAL D.K. DISTRICT – 574 219.
4. RAMACHANDRA BALLAL S/O ITHU BALLAL MAJOR R/AT MUDAIBETTU HOUSE ALIKE VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT – 574 219.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2018 IN REVISION PETITION NO.32/2015 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioner herein is said to be the grantee of 1-46 acres of land in Sy.No.104/2P1 and 0-14 acres of land in Sy.No.104/2P2 of Alike Village, Vittal Hobli of Bantwal Taluk, D.K.District. The grant is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the fourth respondent in this proceedings is claiming right over the land which is granted in favour of the petitioner under the order of grant dated 24.11.2005. In this behalf, there appears to be litigation initiated by the petitioner herein against fourth respondent in O.S.No.206/2010 for the relief of permanent injunction, which is said to be decreed in favour of the fourth respondent.
2. Learned counsel for fourth respondent submits that the said judgment and decree in O.S.No.206/2010 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC at Bantwal, is under challenge. In the meanwhile, it is stated that the appeal filed by the fourth respondent herein before the Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru Sub-division, Mangaluru in Appeal No.CDS RA SR 11/10-11, came to be dismissed by order dated 12.04.2012, which was the subject matter of challenge in Appeal No.C DIS RAP 57/12-13 on the file of Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore, wherein by order dated 24.3.2015, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the said appeal by setting aside the order of Assistant Commissioner and remitted the matter back to Tahsildar for fresh consideration. The said order of remand was challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in R.P.No.32/2015, which is dismissed on 16.03.2018 in confirming the order of Deputy Commissioner. In this proceedings, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in said Revision Petition No.32/2015.
3. In this proceeding, the contesting fourth respondent is represented by Sri.V.R.Prasanna, learned counsel. Insofar as other respondent Nos.1 to 3, are represented by learned AGA who has undertaken to file memo of appearance on their behalf.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 to 4. Perused the order impugned.
5. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that the right of the petitioner in land bearing Sy.No.104/2P1 to 1 Acre 46 cents and 14 cents in land in Sy.No.104/2P2 of Alike Village, Vittal Hobli of Bantwal Taluk, D.K.District under the order of grant dated 24.11.2006 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that earlier to the aforesaid lands were granted in favour of the petitioner herein, the same was utilized by fourth respondent and others as they have a right of way over the said property. When the said right is claimed as it was in existence, it is necessary that an enquiry is required to be conducted by the Tahsildar. In that behalf, it was found that in the appeal filed by fourth respondent before the 2nd respndent allowed by order dated 24.03.2015, in remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar for conducting fresh enquiry within three months. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of dismissal passed in Revision Petition No.32/2015 dated 16.3.2018 does not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
6. While dismissing this writ petition, this Court observe that the jurisdictional Tahsildar who is also Secretary of 3rd respondent – Land Grant Committee shall take necessary steps to conduct an enquiry in this behalf and pass appropriate orders within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB