V' V-.E.,JOINT 'OF LAND RECORDS
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE V.G.sABHAI+3;'_fT ' ;v-J: r.- A
AND
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE A 1'
WRIT APPEAL No.4296/2009 (KLR}'S5 A S'
A/W MISC .w. 1'20::74 /12009 A *
BEIWEEN: A A A A K
SR1 B R KRISHNA MUR'I'IrI_Y A
S/() LATE SR1 " * V
AGED SQYEARS
R/A NO V1/V9, ~ A
PIPE LINE, MAL1,EsWARAy1'
BANGALOR.I~3--O3'*[ APPELLANT
(By Sri : B 1?D4P1nTAsiL§DAiAfI§'AD\n
I
V BANGALGRE DIVISION
" f'K_R'cIRC1,E'--..
._ "".3ANGAL0RE-01
_ 2. "'AssTD1}REc'I0R OF LAND RECORDS
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
- DODDABALLAPURA
'BANGALORE RURAL DIST
3.} THE TAHSILDAR
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
DODDABALLAPURA 56 1 203
4. THE REGISTRAR z
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
-2-
M.S.BUILDING
DR AMBEDKAR BEEDHI
BANGALOI-2E--0 1
5. SRI VENKATASWAMY ,
AGE: 50 YRS,
S/O SR1 POOJABYLAIAH
6. SMT BYLAMMA
W/O SR1 HANUMALAI-I
AGED 45 YEARS
R5 & R6 R/O HALENAHALLI V1.LLA.GI;f: ' '
MADURE HOBLI,
PURUSHANAHALLI POST' "
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK'-561204 V
(By Sri :D.VIJAY KUMAI?;¢.GAGA}A_VA .A ~
THIS wR1*1f_ 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA :--:.1c;L1 -.coI;JR'1_? ACITGPRAYINQG To SET ASIDE
THE IN WRIT PETITION
NO. 1 306.8 /24008 %1;AVTEra 25'/es/2009.
M1sC'.w;12d?4}2Q'0§'\.'rV IS FILED U/S 5 OF THE
LlMITJ'.TION ACTPRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY or
. '_ 67 I_3AYS_:II=J VVFILNAAG' THE. APPEAL
, AND MISC.W COMING ON FOR
PRJELIREINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SABHAHIT J.,
DELlV'EREDg'I'1~1E FOLLOWING:
" ' JUDGMENT »
is Tliis. appeal is fil.ed by the unsuccessful petitioner in
'WgP;I\le.13068/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated
it '25G.8.2009, wherein the learned single judge of this Court
has declined to interfere with the order passed by the
A; '1
"xi
I
Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.1793
and 1794/2003 vide A11nexure--F to the writ petition
confirming the order dated 16.12.2003 passed by theldioint
Director of Land Records vide AnneXure--E _
petition.
2. It is the case of the A'
petition that an area of 4 acres738_ guntaslof 7 ;
of Halenahalli village in Doddabaliaifiurn granted to
him after preparing a sketch .A1:i1ea'seu'ring the same and
survey number was of grant was
challenged by before the Deputy
Comrr;issioner.y dB"a11gualore._gl§{a_ra1~' District and the same was
dismissed andi wh'erefQrc,V.'the order of grant made in favour
of 'writ petitioner to an extent of 4 acres 38 guntas in
'VS}'.1'§Do.77'.D:Aliads'«become final. Further, 5"' 'respondent was
ADgra;1?1’jted” guntas and 63* respondent was granted 1
acre”~.20 in the very same Sy.No.77 by order dated
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 made an application
c.D’for*»appointrnent of a surveyor before the Joint Director of
Records to set aside the revenue sketch and also
it ‘bandobasth’ order passed by the Assistant Director of Land
Records on the ground that the lands which have been
I
granted in their favour and the petitioner comprised in the
L’L},’§
-4-
same Sy.No.77 is overlapping. The 15*» respondent — Joint
Director of Land Records by order dated 16.12.2003 set
I
aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent —-
Director of Land Records and directed to conduct”‘su.rveylas
per the order of grant made by the revenue.’
favour of the petitioner and respon(lentll\1os.l5gg
aggrieved by the same the writpetitioner, appe’llan’t l’ herein
filed appeal Nos.1793 and 1794’x9;oo3 beforel”thle
Revenue Appellate order
dated 4.1.2007. it it ll it
3. of the Tribunal
writ petition herein challenging the
order passed by the order passed by
the liioilnt. Director: of hand Records contending that the
petitionelr.Avvas’granted land measuring 4 acres 38 guntas on
boundaiy and respondent Nos.5 and 6
V dd _ have”-bee–_n’a;1lotted 1 acre 10 guntas and 1. acre 20 guntas of
in the same survey number, which does not fall within
a._llthle”-boundaries of the land allotted to the petitioner on
.1981 and wherefore, there was no necessity for holding
any survey. The learned single judge after hearing the
learned Counsel appearing for the parties held that since
– 5..
there is dispute as to whether the land granted to
respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the petitioner is overlapping,
the authorities felt necessaiy to hold a survey and the said
order would not in any affect the title of the petitioner,c.Vas:th_e
only order that is passed is to conduct a survey _
a report and no ground has been made Oi1t’~fGf..if1t€l’f(j’:f€flC¢3_u it
in exercise of the writ }urlsdictlon pnf Lthis .’
accordingly held that the order pass’e_d’by
Revenue Appellate Tribunal conlflirrning the’-plrder passed by
the Joint Director of .Records justified andudoes not
call for interference in accordingly,
disrnissvedsmthet.Tévritu it aggrieved by the same,
the writ petitioner this appeal. There is delay
of 67 days irffiling tile
is 4-._v:AW.e-.have heard the learned Counsel appearing for
aie’iappe:i5aai_ .
5..«__”:l’h’r:””‘llea.rr1ed Counsel appearing for the appellant
Isubrnittedlh that the land belonging to the petitioner
‘m_easuring 4 acres 38 guntas in Sy.No.’77 has been granted
-»on: 3.7.1981 and the boundaries have been fixed and he was
put in possession of the land as per the boundaries fixed by
the revenue authorities and wherefore, the question of
‘
survey would not arise, as the dispute is arhong respondent
N0s.5 and 6 regarding 1 acre 10 guntas and 1 aci?er’.3_{)
guntas of land allotted in the same survey _
dated 23.12.1997 and wherefore, the ” ~..
ought to have allowed the writ petition. j
6. We have given consideratilonlki to the
contentions of the learned ‘appearingll for the
appellant and record. The
material on wauld that the land
measuring ” ‘sy;No.77 of Halenahalli
village been granted to the
petitioner. 981. The land measuring 1
acre 10 guntas ‘l1as’V-_bee_nl’grar1ted to 5″? respondent and 6″-h
..,resp{jl:dent has been-granted 1 acre 20 guntas in the same
sufiieygg Since there is dispute that ‘the land allotted
to theilpetitiloner and respondent N0s.5 and 6 is overlapping,
Tthe Joint Director of Land Records felt necessary to conduct
V’ l..:’rel§slurveyl as per the order of grant and held that re–sruvey
be conducted only as per the grant and if the
if .bou_ndaries of the petitioner is already fixed, the same would
be considered while conducting re-su_rvey and wherefore, at
this stage, when re–sur\rey has been ordered, the same does
I
{E
not affect the rights of the petitioner. In any event, no
ground is made out for exercising the writ jurisdiction of this
Court to set aside the order passed by the Joint Direc7to:’a.of
Land Records confirmed in appeal and Whereforejftheg’aftler
passed by the learned single judge declining ”
the order passed by the Karnatr:aka.::_4Re\lfent£e’
Tribunal confirming the order passed ‘by the Joint Ijvirectojrluof
Land Records is justified and not suffer”froh1.’a;1yWerror
or illegality as to call thisvuappeal and
accordingly, the appeal is
fon merits, it is
since Itw=-apnea: isTxnséfissed
unnecessary to cotisider _ap.p’iicati_oVn” for condonation of
delay of 67 davjrs in. filing .appe’al.
Sdl –
Judge
sal-
Judge