Karnataka High Court
Sri. Annappa Kulal vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 12944 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 12944 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. ANNAPPA KULAL
S/O SUBBA KULAL
AGED 83 YEARS
R/AT KARANTHYARUBAILU HOUSE,
SANJAYANAGARA
BELTHANGADY KASABA VILLAGE,
Digitally signed
by JUANITA BELTHANGADY TALUK
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH
D.K.- 574 214
COURT OF ...PETITIONER
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU 560 001
2. THE THASILDAR
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
TALUK OFFICE ROAD,
BELTHANGADY TALUK
BELTHANGADY 574 214
-2-
WP No. 12944 of 2022
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS,
DC OFFICE, BUNDER
MANGALURU 575007.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
MYSURU DIVISION
NEAR OLD TALUK OFFICE
MYSURU 570010
5. SRI. THOMAS
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O GEORGE
KARANTHYARUBAILU HOUSE,
SANJAYANAGARA
BELTHANGADY KASABA
VILLAGE AND POST,
BELTHANGADY, D.K - 574 214
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MADESHWARAN C.N. AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. G.H. RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER OF THE R-4
JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS MYSORE DIVISION
MYSORE DTD.12.1.2022 AND ALSO THE ENTIRE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO THE ORDER OF THE R-3 ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
MANGALORE DTD.7.8.2018 IN NO.SUR APPEAL /50/2017-18
AND ON PERUSING THE SAME AND TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.01.2022 ISSUES BY THE R-4 AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 12944 of 2022
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents No.1 to 4. Learned Counsel Sri.G.H.Ravikumar has entered appearance for respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Director of Land Records ('ADLR', for short), Dakshina Kannada District dated 07.08.2018 and the subsequent order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Joint Director of Land Records ('JDLR', for short).
3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records ('DDLR' for short) under Section 49-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, calling in question an order dated 10.11.2017 said to have been passed by the ADLR, Belthangady, in MUT SD/75/1995-96 (ADLR/MPR/684/1994-95) C.R.152/2001-02. However, the said appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay and -4- WP No. 12944 of 2022 laches. The petitioner thereafter approached the JDLR and the JDLR, dismissed the revision petition and consequently, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No.5, it is clear that the contention of the petitioner is that he was granted occupancy rights in respect of 47 cents of land in Sy.No.121/3P1. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that the Land Tribunal had also passed an order conferring the occupancy rights in favour of the *grandfather of respondent No.5-*Sri A.K. Abraham, to an extent of 3 acre and 4 cents in Sy.No.121/3P2. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that in a survey conducted at the instance of respondent No.5 herein on 28.04.1997 said to have been drawn in terms of the court decree, a portion of the land belonging to the petitioner to an extent of 15 cents has been reduced and the same is shown to be in the occupancy of respondent No.5. However, since the *Corrected vide Court order dated 28.09.2022 -5- WP No. 12944 of 2022 petitioner was not aware of the said order of survey settlement, he approached the DDLR, by filing an appeal in the year 2017. However, the said appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner along with his children have already filed O.S.No.331/2018 seeking decree of permanent injunction against respondent No.5 herein. An order of temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner on 12.12.2018. However, in a miscellaneous appeal in M.A.No.16/2018 filed by respondent No.5, the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., has modified the order of the trial court and directed the parties to maintain status- quo in respect of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. When such is the position, it would be impermissible on the part of the petitioner to raise a challenge to an order of survey settlement that has taken place in the year 1997. No fault can be found in the impugned order passed by the survey settlement authorities.
-6-WP No. 12944 of 2022
5. However, while disposing of this writ petition, it is made clear that the petitioner may make necessary application before the trial court, seeking fresh survey and settlement in terms of the original orders of grant passed by the Land Tribunal. As and when such application is filed, the trial court may cause a survey to be conducted at the hands of the competent authority and the authorities shall look into the records including the earlier survey settlement orders which were passed consequent to the orders of the Land Tribunal.
Ordered accordingly.
6. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL