Dismissed

Sri M Shettappa v. Deputy Director of Land Records

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2019WP/41674/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking boundary fixation and allotment of a new survey number. It held that phodi proceedings and a surveyor's report were already completed in earlier litigation, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek civil court redressal. The court ruled it was not open to the petitioner to re-agitate the matter.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of writ petition with costs; petitioner directed to pay Rs. 1,000 to Chief Minister's Flood Relief Fund.

Sri M Shettappa Vs Deputy Director of Land Records — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.41674 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M.SHETTAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, AT & POST : HUSKUR VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ….PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI M.RAGHAVENDRA ACHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, 3^RD FLOOR, D.C.OFFICE, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU – 03.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL – 582 001, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU. ...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO COMPLETE THE PHODI PROCEEDINGS BY FIXING THE BOUNDARY AND ALLOT THE NEW NUMBER AND REMOVE THE EXISTING NUMBER PARTICULARLY P2 IN EXHIBIT D3.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard Sri.M.Raghavendra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶21

¶22

Petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to complete the phodi proceedings by fixing the boundary and allot the new number and remove the existing number particularly P2 in R.T.C. extract (Annexure – ‘D3’).

¶23

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of records, it would indicate that petitioner was allotted/granted two acres of land in Sy.No.57 of Singena-Agrahara Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. Though proceedings came to be initiated to resume the land by second respondent, it came to be dropped on 04.08.2010 (Annexure-‘A’) and it was affirmed in W.P.No.29023/2011 by order dated 31.01.2013 (Annexure – ‘B’).

¶24

Subsequently, petitioner is said to have

¶25

submitted a representation to fix the boundary by

¶26

¶27

conducting phodi proceedings and allot new survey number in place of P2. Pursuant to which, a sketch is said to have been prepared as per Annexure – ‘C’ and in the interregnum, a board is said to have been put up by respondent authorities which per-forced the petitioner to approach this Court in W.P.No.19107/2016, which came to be disposed of by directing the respondents not to interfere with petitioner’s possession over the land otherwise under due process of law by order dated 12.04.2016 (Annexure–‘D’). Since petitioner apprehended action being taken against him and as such, sought for police protection for entry to his land, which was not acceded to by the jurisdictional police and as such, a petition in W.P.No.8482/2017 came to be filed, which came to be disposed of by order dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure–‘D1’) by observing that complaint filed by the petitioner is to be examined by the jurisdictional Station

¶28

¶29

House Officer and to communicate the outcome of such consideration to the petitioner.

¶30

When this was the factual position, petitioner

¶31

is said to have submitted a representation yet again to conduct phodi and durasth work and allot a new number,

¶32

on account of non-consideration of said representation, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.52500/2014 which came to be disposed of by placing the submission made on behalf of learned High Court Government Pleader and directed the authorities to complete the demarcation and fixing the boundaries of subject property

¶33

and on submission of requisite documents by petitioner. Simultaneously, petitioner filed one more writ petition in W.P.No.33106/2017 seeking phodi and durasthi of the subject land and to evict the persons who are said to be in unauthorized occupation of the land allotted to the petitioner. Infact, the Co-ordinate Bench while disposing

¶34

¶35

of the writ petition on 21.08.2017 has observed that surveyor had submitted a report dated 20.10.2016 and it was noticed in the said report that a portion of land belonging to petitioner had been encroached and with regard to prayer for evicting the encroachers, it was observed by this Court that no order adverse to the interest of the encroachers can be passed as they are not parties to the writ proceedings and as such, reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate action in accordance

¶36

with law before the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, writ petition came to be disposed of. Infact petitioner being well aware of this order has not whispered a word in the entire writ petition about said order having been passed. It is only when learned Additional Government Advocate submitted a copy of order passed in W.P.No.33106/2017, this Court was made aware of such observation made by this Court in earlier round of litigation. On account of suppression of

¶37

¶38

said facts, this Court would have been persuaded by the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. When this Court has already observed that petitioner would be entitled to seek redressal of his grievance before Civil Court, it is not open for the petitioner to re-agitate the same subject matter before this Court. Question of either directing the respondents to complete the phodi proceedings or allotting a new number would not arise in as much as such said exercise having already been done and a report dated 20.10.2016 having been submitted by the surveyor.

¶39

The only remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge said order, if aggrieved by the same. Thus, petitioner cannot be allowed to snatch an order from this Court by trick and stratagem. In that view, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶40

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Writ Petition is dismissed with costs directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the Chief Minister’s Flood Relief Fund, failing which, the Deputy Commissioner, i.e., second respondent would be at liberty to recover the same from

¶43

the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.

¶44

Sri M Shettappa v. Deputy Director of Land Records

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Shettappa v. Deputy Director of Land Records

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri a Muniraja Vs State of Karnataka

Shivalingaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Shivalinga Swamy Vs the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

A. M. Sathish Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Haleshappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Brundavan Educational Trust Vs the Thasildar