Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkatesh B Nayak vs State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2016
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
W.P.NO.32389 OF 2016 [LR-RES]
BETWEEN
SRI VENKATESH B. NAYAK
S/O BABURAYA NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.301
3RD FLOOR, DAMLE APARTMENT
BRAHMIN WADI, M.P.ROAD
KURLA (WEST), MUMBAI - 400 070. ... PETITIONER
(BY:SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR
BRHAMAVARA, UDUPI DISTRICT 576101.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KUNDAPURA - 576 201
UDUPI DISTRICT.
4. SRI RAKSHITH KAMATH
S/O RAMACHANDRA KAMATH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1-181, ANAJANA
CHITRAPADI VILLAGE, OPP.ASHRITH COLLEGE
SALIGRAMA POST 576 101
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY:SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 18.4.2015 PASSED BY THE R2 IN LRY/79A 79B/BCR/78/2014-
15, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, the learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent Nos.1 to
3. The issuance of notice to the respondent No.4 is dispensed with.
2. The petitioner has called into question the order, dated 18.4.2015 (Annexure-A) passed by the second respondent Special Tahsildar directing that the name of the purchaser be shown in the pahani in respect of the land in question.
3. Sri Nagaraja Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed objections before the Deputy Commissioner to the purchase of the property by the respondent No.4. He submits that the sale transaction is in violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short).
3
4. Sri Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 prays for the dismissal of this petition.
5. If the petitioner's grievance is over the directions for the change in the entries in the revenue records, his remedy would be to file an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. If the petitioner has some right title or interest in the land in question and if he proposes to challenge the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No.4, his remedy would be to challenge the sale deed by filing a duly constituted suit before the competent civil court.
6. As far as the alleged violations of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Act are concerned, it is a matter between the purchaser and the revenue authorities. If the petitioner wants to give any input regarding the said violations, it is always open to the petitioner to share them with the concerned revenue authorities. But perennially and perpetually, he cannot keep alleging the violations of the said provisions and challenge the orders of the revenue authorities, more so, when this petition is filed in a 4 private interest. The petitioner has no litigational competence to challenge the orders of the revenue authorities passed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. If he proposes to espouse a public cause that the lands are being sold and purchased in violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Act, it is open to the petitioner to approach this Court by filing a public interest petition .
7. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE VGR