Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is the contention of petitioners that 3 acres of land in RS.No.1/1 of Mahalingpur belongs to the petitioners. They got it converted for non-agricultural NC: 2025:KHC-D:6564 purposes. The ADLR prepared KJP sheet. 56 plots were formed in the said land. Separate CTS records were prepared. There was partition between Mahalingappa Ittappa Kokigudda and the petitioners, wherein the property in question was allotted to the share of the petitioners.

4. It is stated that the petitioners wanted to develop the property and approached the Town Planning Authority for approval of the map. At that time, the petitioners were informed by somebody that KJP sheet prepared was not proper. Petitioners approach ADLR once again to prepare the fresh KJP, which was rejected by ADLR on the ground that, since there was already a KJP, drawing of fresh KJP cannot be permitted. Under such circumstances, petitioners approached respondent No.2 by filing a revision seeking to cancel the earlier KJP, directing ADLR to prepare KJP afresh. The revision was allowed. Accordingly earlier KJP was set aside, and the ADLR was directed to prepare fresh KJP.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6564

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that now the petitioners were informed by somebody that the earlier KJP itself was correct and therefore, there is no need of preparing the KJP afresh. Hence, the petitioners approached respondent No.2 once again seeking to review its order of canceling the earlier KJP and directing the ADLR to prepare KJP afresh. The said prayer was rejected by issuing the impugned endorsement, produced as per Annexure-D. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

6. The petitioners have approached the ADLR for fresh KJP by saying that the earlier KJP was not proper, the ADLR has refused to affect fresh KJP when already KJP was drawn. They themselves have approached respondent No.2 with a request to cancel the earlier KJP and seeking direction to the ADLR for preparation of fresh KJP. Such a request by the petitioners was considered by respondent No.2, and he passed an order cancelling the earlier KJP directing the ADLR to prepare fresh KJP. Now the NC: 2025:KHC-D:6564 petitioners have turned around to contend that the earlier KJP itself was correct and therefore, there is no necessity of preparing KJP afresh. I do not find any basis for this inconsistent stand taken by the petitioners which is said to be only on the basis of the say of somebody in the office of the ADLR. Even otherwise, when the petitioners themselves got the order in their favour to cancel the earlier KJP with a direction to the ADLR to prepare KJP afresh, I do not find any reason to quash the endorsement produced as per Annexure-D. Moreover the scope of review is very limited and it will not permit respondent No.2 to recall the order passed on merits, and permitting the petitioners to withdraw the revision. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.