Karnataka High Court
Smt Pavithra vs Deputy Commissioner on 27 August, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:34327
WP No. 19263 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 19263 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT PAVITHRA
W/O LATE S N NANDEESHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.388/389
SHINDHAGATTE VILLAGE
K R PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571426.
2. MASTER S N MITHUN
S/O LATE S N NANDEESHA
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
MINOR REP. BY ITS
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER
SMT PAVITHRA
R/AT NO.388/389
Digitally
signed by SHINDHAGATTE VILLAGE
SUMA B N K R PET TALUK
Location: MANDYA DISTRICT-571426.
High Court
of Karnataka
3. KUM S N VIDHYA
D/O LATE S N NANDEESHA
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
MINOR REP. BY ITS
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER
SMT PAVITHRA
R/AT NO.388/389
SHINDHAGATTE VILLAGE
K R PET TALUK
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:34327
WP No. 19263 of 2021
MANDYA DISTRICT-571426.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA-571401
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION
PANDAVAPURA
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
K R PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
4. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SILNERE HOBLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
K R PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
PIN-571426.
5. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYATH RAJ
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001.
6. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH
MANDYA-571401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRA S.H., AGA FOR R-1 TO 3 & 5,
SRI.B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4,
VIDE ORDER DATED 06.06.2024 NOTICE TO R-6 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:34327
WP No. 19263 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN DISPUTE NO.L.C
52/2019 BY ORDER DTD 23.09.2019 THEREBY PROVIDING 3 FEET
ROAD ONLY TO EYE WASH THIS HONBLE COURT ORDER IN WP
NO.46271/2017 DTD 30.05.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. DIRECT THE R-
1 AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE MINIMUM 18 FEET OF ROAD TO THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE FREE MOVEMENT OF THEIR CATTLE,
BULLOCK AND BULLOCK CART.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
`B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2019 produced at Annexure-A passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya in and by which the respondent No.1 has closed the case as request for providing access through the property belonging to Panchayat has already been granted.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Nanjundaswamy, the father-in-law of petitioner had constructed a residential house in land bearing Sy.No.21/3, Shindhagatta Taluk, K.R.Pet, Mandya District -4- NC: 2024:KHC:34327 WP No. 19263 of 2021 on obtaining permission of respondent No.4-Village Panchayat about 40 years back and that there existed a road on the southern side of the said property connecting to the main road and that respondent No.4-panchayat had illegally closed the said road by putting up a compound wall thereby depriving the petitioner of access. Petitioner thus constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.46271/2017. This Court by order dated 30.05.2019 had allowed the said writ petition directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 17.03.2017 as per Annexures-A, B and C and to pass orders in accordance with law keeping open all the contentions to be urged by the petitioner. The impugned order has thus been passed in furtherance to the said direction issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid order. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition at the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:34327 WP No. 19263 of 2021 outset submits that the order impugned is contrary to provisions of Section 63 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as `Act'). In that he submits that no road or bridge shall be diverted/discontinued or closed before the Gram Panchayat publishes its intention of doing so. Thus, he submits that there exists a road which has been closed by the respondent No.4-Panchayat by erecting a compound wall. In order to justify his claim of existence of road, learned counsel relied upon the documents produced at Annexures-D, E and F which are internal correspondence, mahazar, report ensued between Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, K.R.Pet and Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Mandya District. The said documents pertain to the year 2014-15.
4. Thus referring to the same, learned counsel for petitioners vehemently submits that these documents would categorically establish existence of a road and once the petitioners have established the factum of existence of -6- NC: 2024:KHC:34327 WP No. 19263 of 2021 road provisions of Section 63 of the Act come into operation and the order passed at Annexure-A being contrary to said provisions would therefore become unsustainable. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4- Gram Panchayat files statement of objections along with that he also furnished a copy of rough sketch. Referring to the same, learned counsel submits that property belonging to respondent No.4 Panchayat is situated on the southern side of the property being claimed by the petitioners. That the property which the petitioners claim to be in her possession forms part of a larger extent of property and there is an access/road which is existing on the eastern of the said property connecting to the main road on the south. He submits apparently there was a partition amongst forefathers of husband of the petitioner and in that a residential house which is claimed by the petitioners was allotted to the share of the father -in-law of the petitioner. He submits that no documents are -7- NC: 2024:KHC:34327 WP No. 19263 of 2021 forthcoming from the petitioners to show the existence of a road. He further submits that even the revenue survey records would indicate that the existence of the road on the eastern side of the said property and no road exist on the southern side of the property as claimed. Thus he submits reference to Section 63 of the Act made by learned counsel for petitioners is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Learned counsel for respondent-Gram Panchayat further refers to page No.2 of the impugned order wherein petitioners have admitted regarding non existence of a road and that petitioners now seeking for providing a road. He also refers to contents of mahazar report and submits that even in the mahazar report reference is to the land/property of the Panchayat which exists on the southern side of the property of the petitioners that was being used as a access, and that itself cannot be construed as existence of a road. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:34327 WP No. 19263 of 2021
7. Learned AGA for respondents 1, 3 and 5 furnishes copy of a survey sketch along with a report dated 16.09.2019. He submits that said document would indicate survey sketch has been prepared pursuant to the spot inspection that was conducted by the respondents 3 and 4 in the presence of the petitioners and having come to the conclusion regarding non -existence of road on the southern side of the property and would also indicate existence of space on the northern side of the property of the petitioners which could be utilised by them for access. It is further submitted the Deputy Commissioner has further directed the respondent No.4 gram panchayat to provide access on the southern side of Panchayat property having width of 3 feet which has already been taken into consideration by the concerned Panchayat and a resolution in this regard has already been passed. Thus petitioners not having also made out case with regard to existence of a road cannot rely on Section 63 of the Act, hence seeks for dismissal of the petition.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:34327 WP No. 19263 of 2021
8. Heard and perused the records.
9. Section 63 of the Act reads as under:
"Section 63 -Power of Grama Panchayat as to roads, bridges etc.- All village roads and bridges thereon, cart tracks, drains, wells and other public places in the panchayat area not being private property and not being under the control or management of Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat, Municipal Council, [Town Panchayat, Industrial Township], or the Government shall vest in the Grama Panchayat and the Grama Panchayat may do all things necessary for the maintenance and repair thereof, and may,-
(a) lay-out and make new roads;
(b) construct new bridges;
(c) widen, open, enlarge or otherwise improve any such roads or bridges;
(d) [xxx] divert, discontinue or close any road or bridge; and
(e) deepen or otherwise improve any water way:
[Provided that no road or bridge shall be diverted, discontinued or closed before the Grama Panchayat publishes its intention of doing so.]
10. Case of the petitioners is that there existed a road on the southern side of their residential house that was constructed about 40 years ago. On a query by this Court regarding any document evidencing existence of road as claimed, learned counsel for petitioners points out to a
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34327 WP No. 19263 of 2021 copy of license produced at Annexure-G issued by the Chairman of the Panchayat dated 19.07.1983 and to the Mahazar produced along with Annexure-E. Relevant to refer to the schedule of the property as provided in the said document at Annexure-G which reads as under:
ZÉPÄÀ ̧A¢ ¥ÀƪÀð ¸Á¯ÁgÀ ªÀĸÀÄ gÀ ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁA¥ËAqÀÄ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : SÁ°eÁUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉʸÀÆ̯ï zÀQëtPÉÌ : ¥sÉÊdÄ© "d«ÄãÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : UÀÆ£À« °AUÉÃÉUËqÀ£À ªÀÄ£É.
¥ÀƪÀð ¥À²ÑªÀÄ 78 CrUÀ¼ÄÀ zÀQët GvÀÛgÀ 175 CrUÀ¼ÄÀ
11. The boundaries to the property as noted above indicate on the southern side there is property belonging to one Faizu bi. There is no reference to any road in the said document.
12. The mahazar which was drawn is produced along with Annexure-E to the writ petition reads as under:
PÉ.Dgï ¥ÉÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ ²Ã¼À£ÉgÉ ºÉÆç½ gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëgÀªÀgÀ gÀÄdÄ rmÉÆà vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ rmÉÆà ºÉÆç½ ¹AzÀWl À Ö UÁæªÄÀ zÀ UÁæªÄÀ ¸ÀÜgÄÀ ºÉý §gɹzÀ ªÀĺÀdgï PÀæªÄÀ ªÉãÉAzÀgÉ.
£ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄzÀ £ÀAdÄAqÀ¸Áé«Ä ©£ï ¹zÉÝÃUËqÀ EªÀgÄÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:27.11.2014 gÀAzÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀªÀjUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ºÉÆç½ gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÄÀ UÁæªÄÀ ¯ÉPÌÀ UÀgÉÆqÀ£É UÁæªÄÀ PÉÌ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÄÀ
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34327 WP No. 19263 of 2021 RÄzÀÄÝ ºÁdjzÀÄÝ w½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉý§gɸÄÀ ªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ £ÀAdÄAqÀ¸Áé«Ä ©£ï ¹zÉÝÃUËqÀgÀªÀgÄÀ ºÁ° ¹AzsÀWl À Ö UÁæªÄÀ zÀ UÁæªÄÀ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ºÁUÀÆ gÁfêÀUÁA¢ü ¸ÉÃªÉ PÉÃAzÀæzÀ »A¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸À«zÀÄÝ ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÀģɬÄgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ZÀPÄÀ Ì §A¢:-
¥ÀÆ: gÁªÉÄÃUËqÀ ©£ï ¹zÉÝÃUËqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CfðzÁgÀgÀ SÁ° ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¥À : PÁ¯ÉÃeï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ËæqsÀ±Á¯Á PÁA¥ËAqÀ G : aPÀÌtÚUËqÀ ©£ï UÉÆgÀ« ¤AUÉÃUËqÀgÀ SÁ°eÁUÀ zÀ: UÁæªÀÄ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ¤«Äð¹gÀĪÀ PÁA¥ËAqÀ EzÀÄÝ, CfðzÁgÀjUÉ F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä zÀQët ¢Q̤AzÀ wgÀÄUÁqÀ®Ä eÁUÀ«zÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉƼÀÄîwÛzÝÀ gÄÀ DzÀgÉ EwÛÃaUÉ UÁæªÄÀ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛAiÀĪÀgÄÀ zÀQët ¢QÌ£° À è PÁA¥ËAqÀ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ wgÀÄUÁqÀĪÀÅzÀPÌÉ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ ºÁUÀÆ d£À eÁ£ÀĪÁgÀÄUÀ½UÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
F §UÉÎ gÉÊvÀ ¸ÀAWÀ ºÁUÀÆ d£À±ÀQÛ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀzÆ É A¢UÉ CfðzÁgÀgÄÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.12.2014 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj zÁjUÁV PÉ.Dgï ¥ÉÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀðºÀuÁ¢üPÁj PÀZÉÃj ªÀÄÄAzÉ zsÀgÀtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¢£Á d£À eÁ£ÀĪÁgÀÄUÀ¼ÄÀ wgÀÄUÁqÀĪÀÅzÀPÌÉ gÀ¸ÛÉ E®èzÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ gÀ¸ÛÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ® ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉý §gɹzÀ ªÀĺÀdgï.
13. Necessary to refer to the statement which is underlined hereinabove. The said statement in the mahazar would indicate existence of the property of the Panchayat which was being used by the petitioners for ingress or egress. That alone in the considered view of this Court would not suffice to hold existence of a road for the purpose of Section 63 of the Act as claimed by the petitioners.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34327 WP No. 19263 of 2021
14. Further as seen at page 2 of the impugned order a spot inspection had been conducted and a report in this regard has been filed by the Tahsildar along with a survey sketch. The said spot inspection and the survey sketch is prepared in the presence of the husband of the petitioner. Husband of the Petitioner No.1 himself has admitted that on the eastern side of their property there exists a public road. But no roads have been left on the southern side of the property. It is further admitted on the northern side there is a vacant space and same be used for formation of a road.
15. The survey sketch furnished by learned AGA is in furtherance to the aforesaid report of Tahsildar.
16. Relevant portion of report extracted at page No.2 of the impugned order is as under:
"CfðzÁgÀgÀ zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ°è£À CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ:17.09.2019gÀ 3£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢, ¢£ÁAPÀ 20 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 21.09.2019 gÀ 4£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃgÉU É ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ:16.09.2019gÀ vÀº² À ïÁÝgïgÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄAvÉ
1) ಅ ಾರರು ಂಧಘಟ ಸ ೆ ನಂಬ 21/3 ರ ಾಸದ ಮ ೆ ¤«Äð¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ, F ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï£À°è 0-16 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄäzÀÄÝ EzÀÄ ಮೂಲತಃ ೕ ಮಹಮ! ಹು"ೇ# "ಾ$ %# &ಾಬು "ಾ$ ರವರು ಅನ()ಾ ಂತ *ಾ+ ಅ ಾರರ ,ಾತ-.ೆ ಕ ಯ*ಾ+ರುವ
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34327 WP No. 19263 of 2021 ಜ ೕ ಾ ರುತ ೆ. ನಂತರ ಅ ಾರರ ಸ ೋದರರ ನಡು ೆ ಾಗ ಾ ಈ ಪ ೇಶದ ಪ ಮ "#$ನ%& ಅ ಾರರು ಾಸದ ಮ ೆ ' ()ೊಂ*ದು+, ಇವರ ಮ ೆಯ ಪ/ವ )ೆ$ ಇವರ 0ೋದರ ಸಂಬಂ2ಗಳ4 ಮ ೆ ' ()ೊಂ*ರು5ಾ6ೆ. ಈ ಮ ೆಗಳ ಪ/ವ )ೆ$ 0ಾವ ಜ'ಕ ರ0ೆ ಇರುತ ೆ. ಆದ6ೆ ಮ ೆಗಳನು9 ' ಸುವ ಸಮಯದ%& ಅ ಾರ:;ೆ ರ0ೆ <=>ರುವ?"ಲ&. ಆದ6ೆ ಉತರ ಾಗದ%& Bಾ% Cಾಗ ದು+, ರ0ೆ ' ಸಲು ಅವ)ಾಶ ರುತ ೆ.
2) ಅ ಾರರ ಮ ೆಯ ದDಣ "#$;ೆ ಸ ೆ ನಂಬF 22/1 ರ%& 1-39 ಎಕ6ೆ Hೈ# 0-10 ಗುಂJೆ ಖ6ಾಬು Cಾ5ಾ 1-29 ಎಕ6ೆ ಾನದ ಮೂಲಕ 4 ೇ ಪ L ಾ" ಪಂMಾNL;ೆ ಕOಟಡ ಕಟ>ಲು 'ೕ*ರುವ ಪ ೇಶ ಾ ರುತ ೆ. ಇದು ಸ)ಾ ರದ ಘನತ ೆತ 6ಾಜSHಾಲರ ಪರ ಾ )ಾಯ ದ (ಂಧಘಟ> ;ಾ ಮ ಪಂMಾNರವರ ೆಸ:ನ%& ಎಂಆF 53/2006-
07 ರಂ5ೆ Bಾ5ೆUಾ ಾ% ಪಂMಾNL ಕಟ>ಡ ಾಗೂ )ಾಂHೌಂW
' ಸXಾ ರುತ ೆ.
3) 5ಾಲೂ&ಕು ಸ ೆ ಯF ಅYೆತ ಪ )ಾರ ;ಾ ಮ ಪಂMಾNLಯು ತನ9 Cಾಗದ%& ªÀiÁvÀæ PÁA¥Ëqï ¤«Äð¹zÀÄÝ, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà gÀ¸ÉÛ MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ ¤«Äð¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®,è £ÀPÉëAiÀÄAvÉ E°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà gÀ¸ÉÛ PÀÆqÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è EzÀ£ÀÄß CfðzÀgÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÁ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è M¦àPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
4) 4£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À°è£ÀAvÉ, CfðzÁgÀgÀ PÀÆgÀÄ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ:19/09/2019 ರಂದು ಪಂMಾNL ಅಧSZರ ಅಧSZ5ೆಯ%& ಸ ೆ 0ೇ:
;ಾ ಮ ಪಂMಾNLಯ )ಾಂHೌಂWನ ಉತರ)ೆ$ ಇರುವ ;ಾ ಮ ಪಂMಾNL ಉ[)ೆ Cಾಗದ%& ೕ ಶಂಕ6ೇ;ೌಡ <\ ( ೆ+ೕ;ೌಡ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw PÀA¥ËAqïUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ ¤«Äð¹gÀĪÀ ±ËZÁ®AiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÀª ÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è 'ಣ N( 5ೆರವ?;ೊ[ಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ>ವ:ಗೂ ¸ÀºÁ ೋ=ೕ] Cಾ: ^ಾ* _ೇಷ ಸ ೆಯ ನಡವ[ಯನು9 ಸ%&(ರು5ಾ6ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ:ದು, " ಾಂಕ 21/09/2019 ರ ವರ"ಯ%& `_ೌMಾಲಯ 5ೆರವ?;ೊ[( ಅ ಾರ:;ೆ Lರು;ಾಡಲು ರ0ೆ ಸಂಪಕ ಕ%a(ರುವ? ಾ bಾUಾcತ ಗYೆd ಂ";ೆ ವರ" ಸ%&(ರುವ?ದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ"ರುತ ೆ.
ಈ ಪ ಕರಣದ%& ಅ ಾರದ )ೋ:)ೆ ಮತು 3 ಾಗೂ 4 ೇ ಪ L ಾ" ಸ%&(ರುವ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀAvÉ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ wgÀÄUÁqÀ®Ä 3 Cr ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀ¸ÉÛUÁV vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ".
17. Thus from the material document made available by the parties it is clear that the claim of the petitioners regarding existence of the road on the southern side of the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34327 WP No. 19263 of 2021 property is not made out for the purpose of this writ petition.
18. Without expressing any further view on the merits or otherwise of the claim made by the petitioners, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the respondent No.1.
Reserving liberty to the petitioners to initiate proceedings seeking substantial relief in accordance with law before the Court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised, petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35