Karnataka High Court
M/S Sapphire Infrastructure vs State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2014
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION NOs.56842/2013 C/w 58235/2013,
58234/2013 (KLR-RR/SUR)
IN W.P.NO.56842/2013
BETWEEN:
M/S SAPPHIRE INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT NO.9/1,
FIRST FLOOR, CLASSIC COURT,
RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI.REDDY VEERANNA. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: ARAVIND REDDY.H., FOR M/S REDDY AND REDDY
ASSTS. ADVs.)
AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPT. OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2.THE THASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE,
ANEKAL,
BANGALORE DIST.-562 106.
3.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
4TH FLOOR, DISTRICT OFFICES COMPOUND,
K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.
4.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
DIST:OFFICES COMPOUND,
-: 2 :-
K G ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
5.SRI.P.C.MURUGESH,
S/O PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/A CHAMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DIST.-562 106. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, SRI.V.ANAND,
ADV. FOR R5)
*****
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 23.10.2013 IN BOOMAPANA R.P.NO.7/2013-14 PASSED
BY THE R-4 VIDE ANN-H.
IN W.P.NO.58235/2013
BETWEEN:
SMT.R.PUSHPAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
D/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY,
R/A. AGARA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 102. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: ARAVIND REDDY.H, ADV.)
AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT. OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2.THE THASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE ANEKAL,
BANGALORE DIST.-567 106.
3.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
4TH FLOOR, DISTRICT OFFICES COMPOUND,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009.
-: 3 :-
4.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
DIST. OFFICES COMPOUND,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009.
5.SRI.P.C.MURUGESH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O PAPANNA,
R/A. CHAMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DIST.-567 106. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4,
SRI.V.ANAND, ADV. FOR R5)
*****
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DT.23.10.13, IN BOOMAPANA RP.NO.7/13-14 PASSED BY THE
R4, VIDE ANN-G.
IN W.P.NO.58234/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI.REDDY VEERANNA,
S/O SANJEEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/A NO.140, 8TH CROSS,
10TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION,
SADASHIVANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 003. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: ARAVIND REDDY.H, ADV.)
AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPT. OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2.THE THASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, ANEKAL,
BANGALORE DIST.-576 106.
-: 4 :-
3.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
4TH FLOOR, DISTRICT OFFICES COMPOUND,
K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.
4.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
DIST. OFFICES COMPOUND,
K G ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
5.SRI.P.C.MURUGESH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O PAPANNA,
R/A CHAMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DIST.-576 106. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, SRI.V.ANAND,
ADV. FOR R5)
*****
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DT.23.10.13, IN BOOMAPANA RP.NO.7/13-14 PASSED BY THE
R4, VIDE ANN-G.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The order of the Deputy Commissioner - fourth respondent, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, dated 23/10/2013, passed in R.P.No.7/2013-14 (Annexure "H"), is assailed by the Managing Director of the petitioner - M/s.Sapphire Infrastructure Development Private Ltd., in W.P.No.56842/2013. The same order is assailed by the wife of one of the Directors of the said company in -: 5 :- W.P.No.58325/2013 and the third writ petition is filed by one of the Directors of the company aforesaid.
2. At this stage, it may be stated that none of the aforesaid petitioners was a party to the impugned order. Under the circumstances, the first question that was asked to the learned counsel for the petitioners was with regard to locus standi of the petitioners to assail the impugned order.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5.
4. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have purchased various extents of land in Sy.No.39 at Chambenahalli village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, under different sale deeds. The fifth respondent filed an application before the second respondent on 21/11/2012, with regard to fixation of boundaries of land in Sy.No.129 of the aforesaid village, measuring 4 Acres 2 Guntas of land. The basis of the said application was a gift deed, which is said to have been executed in favour of -: 6 :- the fifth respondent, which is at Annexure "J" dated 15/10/2004 and compromise decree entered into between the L.Rs of one Munishami, stated to be the owner of Sy.No.48/2 of the aforesaid village and fifth respondent in O.S.No.1887/2006 as well as the order of conversion dated 29/08/2013 passed by the fourth respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. On that application, the Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner issued a communication to the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk on 02/04/2013. Being aggrieved by that report, the fifth respondent filed the Revision Petition No.7/2013-14 before the fourth respondent - authority. By the impugned order, the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, was directed to rectify the entries made in the Record of Rights in respect of the land in Sy.No.39, New No.129 of Chambenahalli village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, measuring 4 Acres 3 Guntas + 1 Gunta kharab = 4 Acres 2 Guntas, held by the fifth respondent, as per his actual possession, to fix the boundaries and to regularize the entries in the Revenue Records such as, RTC etc., in the name of the respective khatedars according to their right, title as well as actual possession and enjoyment of the -: 7 :- lands held by them in accordance with law. That order is assailed by the petitioners herein.
5. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner is implemented, then possession of the petitioners' lands, which are purchased under the various registered sale deeds would be affected and hence, the impugned order is assailed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and stated that there is no merit in these writ petitions.
7. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the documents on record, it is noted as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that they are not the adjacent owners of the land in possession of the fifth respondent. It is stated that the fifth respondent's land is not in any way near the land of the petitioners. If that is so, it is un-understandable as to how the petitioners could have a cause of action against the fifth respondent if the latter intends to get the boundaries to his lands fixed. Therefore, writ petition is liable to be -: 8 :- dismissed on the ground of locus standi. If the fifth respondent is in any way interfering with the lands of the petitioners, which according to Respondents is not adjoining to the lands of the fifth respondent, then the petitioners have right to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy. In these writ petitions, the petitioners cannot assail the impugned order, as they are not the adjoining land owners of Sy.No.129, measuring 4 Acres 2 Guntas, in respect of which, the fifth respondent sought fixation of boundaries. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
*mvs