IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.11700/2017 (LB RES) BETWEEN V. CHAKRAVARTHI S/O V. VISHVESHWARA SHARMA, H.NO.288, DATTANAGARA, OOTY ROAD, MYSURU-57.
(BY SRI N SURESHA, ADV.-ABSENT) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NEW SAYYAJIRAO ROAD, DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU-570001.
3. THE DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOVT., OFFICE BUILDING, NO.12, NEAR MAHARANI COLLEGE CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU-570005.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO REGULARIZE THE PETITION SCHEDULE AS PER ANNX-G DTD 10.12.2016 INSOFAR PETITIONER IS CONCERNED ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Case is called. There is no representation for the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate.
3. Office note states that office objections have not been complied with. That apart, it is seen that the petitioner is seeking for the relief of issuance of mandamus to direct the second respondent to regularize the petitioner’s holding of the petition schedule property.
4. Matter was listed on 11.01.2018. As a last opportunity, two weeks time was granted to remove the office objections and Registry was directed to list the petition for Preliminary-Hearing after two weeks. Neither the office objections are removed nor has the Registry complied with the direction issued by the Court. The petitioner has deemed it unnecessary to remove the office objections.
5. Perusal of the pleadings would reveal that the petitioner contends that he is the owner of a particular portion of the larger extent of property comprised in Survey No.103/1, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru District, and it is contended that the same is acquired under unregistered sale deed. There being no recognizable title, the petitioner has no locus-standi to seek for the intended relief. That apart, it is also seen that the land has been subjected to acquisition for the purpose of formation of a burial ground. The said acquisition proceedings are not called in question in the instant writ petition. That apart, despite the passage of more than a year and half, the petitioner has not deemed it fit to comply with the office objections. The same reflects the indolence and lack of diligence of the petitioner and on that ground alone, the writ petition requires to be rejected.
On merits also, this court is of the considered opinion that the petition is highly misconceived.
Accordingly, petition stands rejected.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE