Karnataka High Court
Sri K H Devaraj vs Sri B Krishna Kumar on 1 December, 2014
Author: Dilip B.Bhosale
Bench: Dilip B Bhosale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 01st DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
WRIT PETITION NO.16921/2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI K H DEVARAJ
S/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA,
AGED 62 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
K.H.SOMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
KALIHUNDI VILLAGE,
MOLIYOOR DAKLE, CHAKKUR POST,
SARGOORU HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT- PIN-571 114.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. B S NAGARAJ, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI B KRISHNA KUMAR
S/O DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
N.BEGUR VILLAGE,
ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI,
H.D.KOTE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 114
2. SRI.K.H.JAYANNA
S/O HUCHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
KALIHUNDI VILLAGE,
SARGUR HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK - 571114
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. B L THARANATH, ADV. FOR R1 SRI.K.B.GOPALAIAH, ADV. FOR R2) 2 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS & SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.16.1.14, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF SR.CIVIL JUDGE AT HUNSUR IN EX.CASE NO.188/2003, AT ANN-A. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
PC:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16.01.2014, whereby, his application (I.A.No.9) for appointment of court commissioner has been allowed. The prayer in the application reads thus:-
"For the reasons stated in the
accompanying the affidavit the
applicant/objector prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint the Taluk Surveyor at H.D.Kote as a court commissioner to measure the land bearing Sy.No.113/1 measuring about 5 acres and land bearing Sy.No.113/2 measuring about 10 acres situated Molayur village, Sargur hobli, H.D.Kote taluk and measuring 3 objector/applicant's land bearing Sy.No.113/2, measuring about 5 acres at Molayur village, Kasaba hobli, H.D.Kote taluk, and preparing the sketch of the above said properties and mentioning possession and schedule of the above said properties along with the encroachment and reporting the same, by allowing this application in the interest of justice and equity".
3. The court below allowed the application and issued the following directions:-
"(i) The commissioner is required to issue notice to the Decree holder, judgment debtor and the obstructor/bajudars and the person in the encroached area before measuring the execution schedule land
(ii) The court commissioner is required to take the revenue sketch available in Taluk office in respect of Sy.No.113/2A measuring 7 acres 20 guntas and demarcate the same as per the sketch.4
(iii) The commissioner shall demarcate 5 acres of land in Sy.No.113/2A as per the sale deed dated 23/3/1987.
(iv) The commissioner shall measure the extent of road in Sy.No.113/2A.
(v) The commissioner shall measure the extent of land acquired for channel in Sy.No.113/2A.
(vi) The commissioner shall measure the extent of encroached land in Sy.No.113/2A, measuring 5 acres purchased by K.H.Devaraju and 2 acres of execution schedule property".
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the court below ought to have directed the court commissioner to carryout the commission work as per the memo of instructions.
5. Though, he is so submitted, he could not point out, any error of law or prejudice that is likely to be 5 caused to the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the order of the court below is very specific, which, in my opinion, covers all the points including the points in the memo of instructions.
6. In view thereof, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is always open to the petitioner to file his objections to the report, if he so desires and advised and also seek examination of the court commissioner.
7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.