Karnataka High Court
Jagadish Rai vs Laxmi on 1 September, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 17047 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. JAGADISH RAI
S/O VARADANNA RAI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT KOLAMBETHADDA HOUSE,
KUTRUPPADY VILLAGE AND POST,
PUTTUR TALUK
D K DISTRICT-574221
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LAXMI
W/O LINGAPPA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT KUTRUPPADY VILLAGE AND POST,
PUTTUR TALUK,
D K DISTRICT-574221
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
PUTTUR, D K DISTRICT-574221
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
MANGALURU,
D K -575001
4. JOINT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
-2-
MYSORE SUB DIVISION,
MYSURU-570008
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R2 TO 4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.01.2022 PASSED BY
THE R4, JDLR, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSURU, IN
NO.BHUJAMNI.RI.PI.318/2021.22 THEREBY CONFIRMING THE
ORDER DATED 27.09.2015 FO THE R2 IN NO.C.DIS.S.U.R.
APEAL/30/16.17 CONFIRMING THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF
PLOTTING PASSED BY THE ADLR, PUTTUR, DK IN NO.11E L R F
94/12.13 SUBDIVIDING THE SY.NO.24/2 INTO SY.NO.24/2
AND SY.NO.24/9 AS PER ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE APPEAL AS PRAYED.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Notice to respondent No.1 is not necessary for the following reason.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the two impugned orders at Annexures-A and B passed by the Joint Director of Land Records and the Deputy Director of Land Records. It is the contention of the petitioner that his father, Sri.Varadanna Rai was conferred with occupancy rights of 16 cents of land in Sy.No.24/2 of Kutruppady -3- Village, Puttur Taluk, by order of the Land Tribunal, Puttur, on 26.02.1980. However, it is sought to be contended by the petitioner that in Sy.No.24/2, which has a total extent of 25 cents, the petitioner is in possession of the entire extent of land and therefore, when the respondent- authority sought to conduct a survey and fix the boundaries at the instance of respondent No.1, the petitioner approached the Deputy Director of Land Records in C.Dis.SUR.Appeal/30/2016-17. The Deputy Director passed the impugned order dated 27.09.2016 holding that the respondent No.1 has placed on record the material to show that the remaining extent of 9 cents in Sy.No.24/2 were granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of the respondent No.1 herein. Accordingly, the Deputy Director dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The revision petition filed before the Joint Director of Land Records, Mysore was also dismissed by an order dated 12.01.2022 upholding the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records.
-4-
3. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that when material is available on record before the authorities in support of the contention of the respondent No.1 herein that 9 cents of land which remained after 16 cents were granted in favour of the petitioner's father and the said 9 cents were granted in favour of respondent No.1 herein, there was no impediment for the authorities to conduct the survey and fix the boundaries to the extent of 16 cents which were granted in favour of the petitioner. However, the authorities are required to take care that the 16 cents of land are identified and no harm or prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner while identifying the remaining 9 cents of land and fixing the boundaries accordingly.
4. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE rv