IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A S. Bv_O~PA:NNAA 3
WRIT PETITION NO. S51 /2OToIs3 G 7
BETWEEN :
V M PRABHAKAR S/O V K ~ G
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O YALAKANUR ROSA}; A 1-.LI
ASBARUKATTE POST V V
TALUK SOMWARPETV.-" .
DISTRICT KQDAGU
[BY SRI. R P§§AOEfi¢I§A FOR
SR1. C H JA.f)HA'J,
AND
I STATS OF KA R NSATA7' KA
.» BY ITS SECRETARY To GOVT.,
» REVENUE" «D..E.PARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
=. , DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
_ Ia,zTNOI~II,ORE -« 560 001
2 THE'vi)E:P'UTY COMMISSIONER
T. KODAGU DISTRICT
~M1?'gDIKERI
1".
PETITION ER
Ix)
3 THE TAHASILDAR
SOMWARPET TALUK
SOMWARPET
KODAGU
R/o YALAKANUR HOSAHALLI_VILLA'G'E':I../I4j V
ABBARUKATTEPOST "
TALUK SOMWARPET
DISTRICT KODAGU V .,;.RES'PoNI)EI€TsR.
(BY SR1. 1;) P PRAsANI\IAf,"';nIDv. "Fo.R
SRI. R KUMAR, HcG'R_IIo,R R1 To. R4]_F
THIS WRIT PETITI'oN'Is I?I:LEIjflfuI§II3ER ARTICLES 226
8/(')7«~O8 PASSED. BY RESPOINDENT NO.2, DEPUTY-'
COMMISSIOi_NES{;'I'AS_PER:.ANN.E.X[JRE--E.
THI§s1Vw--R:IT PET1TIo1S: ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING. IN'~fB' IS DAY, THE coURT MADE THE
4;' "The pet-itioner is before this Court seeking for
of_wI9it, of certiorari to quash the order dated
A'25:sf2oo'8~II.pa;éséd in Rev. No.8/2007-08 by the second
_ resfiond'eT1t/"Deputy Commissioner which is impugned
W Arine}{ure--E to the petition.
I
.5.
'0
of Water in the said channel and therefore the petitioner
was constrained to approach the revenue authorities to
remove the obstruction. It is contended"'Cthat-'.._.the
Revenue Inspector as Well as the Tahsiidarfhave 'noticed _ x
the obstruction made byfthe COi'It_€'dSting' it
is also contended that :respondent has
instituted a suit in the said suit,
the contesting admitted that
there are in his land and
therefore that when these facts
are Commissioner by the
was not justified in
Comingto the A-conclitision that the said three channels
dparities” to redress their grievance before the
Civi’I’Coi1Art;’ ”
i
(‘-
nor are they being maintained by the Cauvery Neeravari
Nigam Ltd. With reference to the sketch, it l’$l:ll%l’dlCatCd
that the channels are passing through
At the outset, the nature of the instru.ctioris
p priovidetd “in _
Writing by the Tahsildar
the earlier order of the relied on by
the learned C0unse_l”‘:~-for~’_l:the would not be
available for A’reliance…:.at Therefore, the
matter be:considleredflindependent of the
same. by the Deputy
it is noticed that the
Deputy to the details of the
rival’contentio.tis and has recorded a” finding that there
. l “isrlo.reccrdiayailable to indicate that the three channels
q1uestiori.l..;””‘are government channels and are
maintained Cauvery Neeravari Nigam Ltd. It is in
Jtha.t_’ context the Deputy Commissioner on noticing that
l
_.u—
‘R
the parties, the same is to be resolved in;”a”cijV~i..l:
Therefore, in that context, when
issued such instructions at fgpresenjt ‘in”theat”*i,ight it
when the order passed hy_4_the AD.e_;’jL1ty
once again perused, “C’o..h1nj1iss%ioner was
justified in that it i it
6. Herittgrrfthe impugned in
this interference. However, it
is there is certain materials
availavhiewfi reeord,»:jr1.¢;feV.’.partiCuIar1y the observations
madehy thee-.DVep’i1tyx’Commissioner in the course of the
‘i order a’ndj”a1so the averments made by the contesting
i.nevt).S.No.56/O7 regarding the How of three
Channels’ through the land belonging to the contesting
“respondrent, with regard to the said three channeis, the
i}
/9
e 3 wtot1.!Vd have
to be resolved in civil proceedings. Even;”s’ue.hj—-si’tu2ition
is not foreseen, since there is an und
a
of the contesting 5
three channels (ineludiVngA1_ hat1§A\¥h.. , them H
from him for the flow of in’.the”I1s;tttred:feourse and
the use of the
claimed ishe1_=ei}f1″”3′..doesfj-,e merit consideration and
accord–irng.lyV “theV”s?a’1ne’sVt’ands disposed of. No order as to
costs}; ”
_ . Sd/-
sssss JUDGE