Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7. Notice to respondent No.4 is not necessary for the following reasons;

2. Petitioners No.1 and 2, appears to have filed a writ petition earlier in W.P.Nos.202954- 202955/2018 seeking a direction to the Assistant Director of Land Records (for short 'ADLR'), to prepare and issue an order (Kammi Jasti Patrike) in respect of 23 guntas of land in Sy.No.257/1A, of Talikoti village, Muddebihala Taluk, Vijayapura District. This Court by order dated 12.04.2019, directed the ADLR to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Learned Counsel submits that consequent to the directions issued by this Court, the ADLR passed an order dated 17.05.2019 declining to accede to the request made by the petitioner on the ground that 23 guntas of land which the petitioner is claiming in re-Sy.No.257/A, is a B-kharab land, mentioned as "Moram Khani" and therefore, the said B-kharab land belongs to the government and it is not permissible for the petitioner to make any claim and more so, before the ADLR. Thereafter, the said two writ petitioners again filed a writ petition in W.P.No.226975/2020. However, on 27.06.2022, the writ petition was dismissed, since steps were not taken to bring the legal representatives of the petitioners on record.

3. This writ petition has been filed in the names of Sri.Manohar and Sri.Govindarao, however, showing their sons as legal representatives, without seeking leave of this Court. Be that as it may, although the ADLR has already passed an order stating that the land in question is a B-kharab land and therefore the request made by the petitioners cannot be acceded to, the petitioners are once again before this Court making same prayer seeking directions to the respondents to prepare and issue Kammi Jasti Patrike after fixation of boundaries in respect of the land in question.

4. In the considered opinion of this Court the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the ADLR, they are either required to question the same or approach the competent authority as was directed by the ADLR.

5. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the competent authority to redress their grievances.