Karnataka High Court
Govinda Nayak S/O Annappa Nayak vs The Deputy Commissioner Dakshina ... on 23 July, 2009
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
IN me HIGH coma': OF KARNATALKLA AT
DATED: mxs THE 2339 DAY 09 JU'I_..Y';' E _
Paasagr 'Hx V
THE HON' BLE MR.
: MD. M . _
THE H{)N'BLE MR. Rzwif' mfimrn
BETWEEN
Govindanayal:,1'.:__ = '-- '-
S10 Aiiiiapgiig Nayak,
about -- .
Resident of 'Saagé1bet§1._1"'?iJ1zgge,
Banta"wa_1Taluka, _ %
Mangalore_VDist1'ic*_t. APPELLAN"?
Su.V. £5 Ravi S. I-Iegde, Aaévocates)
H * ;-»'I'fi.:é' Commissioner,
{$3
Kanaacla,
" District.
,. 4_ Afitiifinnai Committee
For Regulaxisaiion of
V ' ' "E3:1«c3:'omhed Iami,
Bantwal Taiufi,
DJ-i. Mangalcm Biatrict
3. Tahsikiar,
Bantwal Taiuka,
Mangaiore District.
4. Umanatha Nayak,
S] 0 Krishnappa Nayak,
Age: Major, Resident of
Sangabettu village,
Taluka Bantwal,
D.K. Mangalorc District.
3. Vishwanatha Nayak,
S] 0 Krishnappa Nayak,
Age: Major,
Sangabettu village,
[).I{. Mangalorc District. .;; RESPONDENTS.
Sxnt. Asha M. s<:k;.w»$:»m:]e~;.,:;~_r;c'xt*r;,' L-§£C£.}P_«ié;1f*R;:14 ta 3)
This wriiigrmak, -":7i;s nk:d* * ti31§i€:r':'§'§cction 4 of the Karnataka
High Vibe order pasacd in Writ
Petition No. 44834-1 2<_)0g4 meg 5.3.2005.
This " on for I-Ieaxing this day,
_ V Manj1.;1:§afiz.J., deiivgéréd the following:
JUDGMENT
2 Counsel for thc: part1es' .
2. " The short qucsfion that arises for our consiclczation in is whether the kuxnki land granted to respondent 'N03; 4 and 5 attached to their warga land on an application (€~/ filed by them. in form No. 53 can be challenged by the/appellant who is an adjacent owner.
3. The dispute is in regard to Lané attached to the Warga land ._appeE2::1:;"i'.eeV'\ee1iV".as VL respondent Nos. 4 am} 5 is that they On an earlier occasion, fer regularisation of unamjihofig-ed 'Ve_§:rL1'.'VVi'i1'es_r§:-zticfi " Section 208(D)(6) of the which came to be rejected. I1; Tahsfldar, Bantw-a1 Taluk ente1j::1i" Nos. 4 and 5 in the revenue land, which had resulted in ef' "tinder Section 49 of the Karnataka jiangi Liievenee the appellant before the Degfiziy Kannada, Mangakzre. The sand' dismissed as per Annexuxe-K dated eesgiigé No. 259/2001-02 on the ground that the land atfeished ten the Warga land of respondent Nos. 4 ad 5 granted by the Committee constituted for of unauthorised cultivation. Therefoxe, he ' éeeiined to intexfere with the order passw by the Tahsildar, ~57"
Bantwal. Challenging the same, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No. 44834/2004 whicsligcame to be dismissed on 5.7.2005. Chailenging finciings of the Court below, the present appca1 ' ' '
4. Having heard the learned for i on perusal of the records to reg11:1asii;é.afion3':oi' L' land in favour of respondent and"'5 _by constituted for regtflafisoiion pf eulfivation, we am of the opinion that, theV1eais1§1e«;iE"Sing'};e.;_j;§iige was justifieci in dismissitxg the'.xv:§if;':~pcti'§Eio1; of the kumki land faV£'§it1=j.f'Vpf Nos. 4 and 5 was the Land attached to__ the "of""1espondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is submiited me' for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 V' «--..d3atv;..evenv.theappeiléiifvhad fiicd an application - form No. 53 which apjpiicafion came to be rejected and the appellant has not preferred any appeal. ' '.§'herefore:,A':.he contends that the rejection of the applicatiolz of A filed in form No. 53 by the Committee consfitutcd forf reglllaxisation of the unauthorised culfivation has become '4 fioal and that the appellant cannot be considered as an e«§>/' aggrieved pcrsson to challenge the regularisation of the land made in favour ef msponszient Nos. 4 and 5.
5. Whfifl the application of the Jffizr regularisation in respect of kumki land attacl;cfi~--:o' land has been rejected, it is the same by filing xcuaceasary appeal the subsisting interest in rmpect <:)f"'kun3.ki the' waznga land of respondenf Bios. we hold that the learned Single Judge'1i£§$'c§imL ;:":t¢§1':%a;';1LV;:;~;~or in dismissing the writ petition: . is dismissed.
,sdI-5* I-Edge S_<,i/3' Iudfi . . . . . ' %-%%~NsuIAs