Karnataka High Court
Rangappa S/O Kunta Rangadhamaiah vs N Rangappa S/O Nagappa on 4 July, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P.Nos.16894-895/2012 (KLR-CON)
BETWEEN:
1 RANGAPPA
S/O KUNTA RANGADHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT HOSKERE VILAGE,
MEDIGESI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DIST.
2 H.R. KARIYANNA
S/O KUNTA RANGADHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT HOSKERE VILLAGE,
MEDIGESI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
..PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1 N RANGAPPA
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT HOSSAKERE, MEDIGESH HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT
TUMKUR
3 PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
HOSAKERE GRAM PANCHAYATH
HOSAKERE, MEDIGESI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, HCGP FOR
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DIRECT OR ANY WRIT TO R-2 TO
CANCEL/REVOKE THE ORDER OF CONVERSION
DATED 15.03.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PERTAINING
TO LAND IN SY.NO.57/9 OF HOSKERE VILLAGE,
MADHUGIRI TALUK ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Petitioners are claiming having 1/4 th share in the property bearing Sy.No.56, 57 and 58 of Hosakere Village and contend that they have filed suit for perpetual injunction against first respondent in O.S.522/2010 who has been restrained by an order of temporary injunction from demolishing the Channel as also Well situated at Sy.No.56 & 57 and contends that first respondent who is in possession of a bit of land in Sy.No.57 (57/9) has clandestinely obtained order of conversion dated 15.03.2012 Annexure-A from second respondent without following due procedure and instead of using the said land for agricultural purpose or residential purpose (as converted) is now attempting to put up a shopping complex, nursing home illegally and has obtained licence from the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of putting up a commercial building which is 4 contrary to the order passed by second respondent- Deputy Commissioner where the land has been converted for residential purposes as such petitioners seek for quashing of revocation/ cancellation of conversion order dated 15.03.2012 in No.ALN(MG)CR.125/2011-12 Annexure-A and also for a direction to second respondent and third respondent to initiate suitable action against first respondent for violation of order of conversion and revocation of licence granted in favour of first respondent for having undertaken construction of commercial complex over the land in question in Sy.No.57/9.
2. Heard Sri.H.V.Harish, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned HCGP for respondents 2 and 3 who has accepted notice. By consent matter is taken up for final disposal. Perused the impugned order dated 15.03.2012 at Annexure-A. 5
3. On an application made by first respondent, second respondent in exercise of his power under section 95(2), 95(4) and 95(7) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act read with Rule 107(1) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules has permitted the first respondent herein to utilise the property bearing Sy.No.57/9 measuring 17 guntas from agricultural purpose to residential purpose. Against this order petitioner has a alternate and efficacious remedy under Karnataka Land Revenue Act of filing an appeal under section 49(1)(c). Petitioner without exhausting alternate and efficacious remedy available under law has approached this court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction and hence first prayer sought for by petitioner cannot be entertained and it is hereby rejected.
4. In so far as second prayer is concerned it is noticed that petitioners has not issued any notice before 6 filing this writ petition by bringing to the notice of second respondent of any alleged violation of licence conditions. At this juncture it is submitted that legal notice has been issued on 27.06.2011 to respondent No.2 and as such petitioners pray for a direction as sought for in the writ petition. A perusal of the said legal notice dated 27.06.2011 would clearly go to show that it is issued prior to the order of conversion having been passed namely 15.03.2012. In the said notice, authorities have been requested not to grant any permission if sought for by first respondent herein. Said notice does not disclose about the second respondent having already passed an order of conversion. In that view of the matter this legal notice issued by petitioners to the second respondent does not come to the rescue of petitioner for considering the grant of second prayer. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly writ 7 petitions stands rejected.
It is needless to state that petitioners would be entitled to pursue their grievance in appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBN