IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1126 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) AND WRIT APPEAL NOs.1436-1437 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
VADIRAJ ACHARY S/O LATE KANTHAPPA ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, 27(A) OLD NO.333, MALLYANA MANE, KANITHILA VITALA KASABA, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-474 160 AND:
1. ISHWAR BHAT S/O LATE D. KRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT CHITTARA, KADARI, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA-474 160 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEP. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, … APPELLANT IN BOTH CASES REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE-574 145.
4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE SUB-DIVISION, MANGALORE-574 145 5. THE THASILDAR, BANTVALA THALUK, BANTAWALA, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 145.
---
… RESPONDENTS IN BOTH CASES THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.5699/2018 AND W.P. NOs.6428-6429/2018.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He is the fifth respondent in the writ petitions filed by the first respondent.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge directed the authorities to comply with the direction of removing the appellant from the occupation of a portion of land in Survey No.74/2. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant was in unauthorized occupation of the said portion of land in Survey No.74/2. Therefore, a direction was issued directing removal of the appellant from the occupation of the said portion of land.
3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that an application for regularization of possession was made by the appellant in respect of land in Survey No.74/2 and as per the direction of this Court on 12th March, 2015 passed in W.P. No.52665/2014, the said application for regularization has not been considered. He would, therefore, submit that till the application for regularization is not disposed of, the action of removal of the appellant from the relevant portion of land in Survey No.74/2 cannot proceed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent pointed out that the said application for regularization has already been rejected by the Tahsildar by endorsement dated 23rd May, 2016.
5. We have considered the submissions. Firstly, it is very difficult to accept that the application (Annexure-R5) is an application for regularization of the possession of the land in Survey No.74/2. It seeks regularization of the land adjacent to Survey No.75, without specifying the survey number. Assuming that such an application was made, now there is a communication issued by the Tahsildar stating that the application for regularization has been rejected. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Tahsildar is not the authority to reject the application.
6. Even assuming that the application for regularization of land relates to Survey No.74/2, the order passed by the Tahsildar on 7th December, 2017 rejecting the prayer for regularization, has not been challenged by the appellant. Thus, on admitted facts, we cannot find fault with the impugned order by which a direction was issued to remove the appellant from the occupation of a specific portion of the land in Survey No.74/2.
7. There is no merit in the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. If permissible in law, the appellant can always challenge the communication dated 7th December, 2017 recording the rejection of the application for regularization.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*