Karnataka High Court
Sri T R Muniraju vs Sri M Chandra Reddy on 9 September, 2019
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 53807/2018 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI T R MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE SRI N P RAMAIAH
@ N P RAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.27, 3RD CROSS,
I MAIN, VINAYAKANAGAR, "B" BLOCK,
KONENA AGRAHARA,
BENGALURU-560017.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. SRI M CHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY
2. SRI C LOHIT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O SRI M CHANDRA REDDY,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.2491, 17TH MAIN,
HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-08.
3. SMT DIVYA C
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
D/O SRI M CHANDRA REDDY,
W/O SRI NAVIN KUMAR S,
R/AT NO.197, IRIS MANOR,
2ND MAIN, 2ND STAGE, DOMLUR,
BENGALURU-560017.
4. THE DUPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVANA, BENGALURU-560009.
2
5. THE TAHSILDAR
K.R PURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU-560048
6. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
(STORM WATER DRAIN)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
4TH BLOCK, 9TH FLOOR, JAYANAGAR BDA COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560011.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.R. NITHYANANDA, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 68[1] OF THE
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT DATED 13.08.2008
PUBLISHED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE R-5, TAHSILDAR,
BENGLAURU EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM IN THE KARNATAKA
GAZETTE DATED 21.08.2008 AS PER ANNEXURE-'K' TO THIS
W.P. & ETC.,
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
2. No notice is issued to private respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the reason that petition is being heard finally at the threshold for the reason indicated herein below.
3. Order/Notification issued under Section 68(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act dated 13.08.2008 Annexure-K and consequent Notification issued under 3 Section 68(5) on 20.04.2009 Annexure-L are called in question in this writ petition, raising several grounds contending interalia that land in question which is exclusively meant for the public purposes and which belongs to Government of Karnataka is being diverted for being used for non agricultural purposes, thereby it amounts to block the natural flow of drain water and thereby contribute to flooding and water stagnation, which in turn would result in health hazards.
4. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the petitioner claims to be the owner of land bearing Sy.No.58/1 measuring 5 Acres 30 guntas and the land measuring 2 Acres 37 Guntas in Sy.No.63/1 including 16 Guntas of 'B' Karab land, which are situated at Thubarahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, contending that the said property is a joint family property. It is further contended that Sri. Chandra Reddy s/o late Muniswamy Reddy with the assistance of Revenue officials has managed to obtain conversion of 16 guntas of 'B' Karab land on the basis of false mahazar report, which is exclusively meant for 4 public purposes, which is said to be belonging to Government of Karnataka. In fact, there is a dispute with regard to these lands even according to the petitioner pending in O.S.No.4233/2011 on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore.
5. These disputed question of facts cannot be gone in writ jurisdiction. That apart petitioner who is claiming a right over the properties in question, had not filed any objections to the Notification issued under Section 68(1) which is the mandate of sub-section(2) of Section 68 of the Act. It is in this background, Government of Karnataka has issued the impugned Notification under Section 68(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act on 16.04.2009 Annexure-L. Thus, for 10 long years, petitioner has kept quiet and has not raised his little finger and at this point of time, the disputed question of fact has been raised in the writ petition which cannot be gone into in writ proceedings that too after lapse of 10 years and on the ground of delay and latches also, petition liable to be rejected. 5
6. That apart, as noticed herein above, when the dispute relating to the land in question is pending in the suit before Civil Court, it would not be appropriate for this Court to go into those aspects and it may prejudice rights of the parties. Further it requires to be noticed that petitioner has also invoked the jurisdiction of the Special Court adjudicating the issues relating to the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, alleging that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein have encroached upon 16 guntas of 'B' Karab land in Sy.No.63/1 referred herein supra. As such, this Court is of the considered view it would not be apt and appropriate to examine the contentions now raised in the present writ petition and for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view, there is no merit in the petition and it is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Government Advocate is permitted to file Memo of Appearance within a period of four weeks from today.
SD/-
JUDGE Srl.