Allowed

Smt Channamma v. the Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2019WP/51348/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition to quash a communication directing police to facilitate barbed wire fencing by a respondent, on land the court found belonged to the petitioner due to pending re-survey and incomplete revenue record bifurcation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 2.11.2017 seeking police protection for fencing is quashed. The Tahasildar is directed to bifurcate records as ordered by the Appellate Authority.

Smt Channamma Vs the Government of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.51348 OF 2017 (KLR – RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SMT. CHANNAMMA, W/O RANGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT C/O HONNAIAH, HOTTEGOWDANA DODDI, NIDAGHATTA POST, ATAGOOR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADV.)

¶9

AND :

¶10

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶11

THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT FOR THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & OFFICIATING DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶12

THE TAHASILDAR, MADDUR TALUK, MADDUR – 571 428,

¶13

¶14

MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, RE-SURVEY OFFICE, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.

¶16

THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT OF LAND SURVEY, TALUKA OFFICE, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.

¶17

SRI.MARIAPPA, S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT VADDARA DODDI, NIDAGHATTA, ATAGOOR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.

¶18

SMT. SHANTHAMMA, W/O MARIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT VADDARA DODDI, NIDAGHATTA, ATAGOOR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.

¶19

SMT. KAMALAMMA, W/O LATE Y.M.BHOJANNA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT HUNASEMARADA DODDI, RUDRAKSHIPURA POST, ATAGOOR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.

¶20

¶21

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KESTUR POLICE STATION, KESTURU, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 – 5 & 9;

¶24

SRI.M.BABU, ADV., FOR R8;

¶25

R6 AND R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY R-3 IN CR.NO.33/15-16 DATED 02.11.2017 AT ANNEXURE – R AND ETC.,

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Petitioner has sought for quashing of the communication dated 02.11.2017 (Annexure-R) forwarded by 3^rd respondent to the jurisdictional police namely, 9^th respondent whereunder he has sought for protection to enable 8^th respondent to put up barbed wire fencing.

¶30

Dispute in this petition revolves around land bearing Sy.No.35 (old) which is said to have been purchased by petitioner in an extent of 2 acres out of 7

¶31

¶32

acres 1 gunta situated at Nidaghatta village, Atagoor Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District under a registered sale deed dated 15.10.1988 from respondent Nos.6 and 7. In the said sale deed, a recital is found to provide the purchaser a cart road as approach road for the remaining lands. Pursuant to sale deed, revenue records have been mutated in the name of petitioner in respect of the property purchased by her. Third respondent surveyed the entire land bearing Sy.No.35 by assigning new survey numbers in terms of the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner. Said order of phodi durasti resulted in reduction of petitioner’s land to an extent of 2 ¾ guntas. Hence, petitioner filed an appeal before second respondent in appeal No.11/16-17. Said appeal though came to be dismissed, it was observed by the appellate authority that on account of re-survey No.5, RTC entries having been made jointly in the name of different land owners relating to an extent of 7 acres; further, phodi durasti is required to be made by the Tahsildar and as such,

¶33

¶34

directed third respondent to re-conduct phodi durasti in association with the Surveyor, Maddur Taluk.

¶35

Accordingly, following direction came to be issued:

¶36

“ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ DvÀUÀÆgÀÄ ºÉÆÃ§½ ¤qÀWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA. RS 5 gÀ Dgï.n.¹AiÀÄ°è dAnAiÀiÁV ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ, E£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃ¥Àðr¸ÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï, ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÀÆzÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (PÁ.¤.) ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄgÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸À®Ä DzÉÃ²¹zÉ.”

¶37

Under the guise of implementing direction so issued under order dated 29.7.2017, third respondent has issued the impugned communication dated 2.11.2017 Annexure-R to the jurisdictional police i.e., 9^th respondent for providing police protection. Hence, this writ petition.

¶38

It is the contention of Sri.Janardhana.G, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that 3^rd respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing direction to the jurisdictional police to provide protection to 8^th respondent to enable him to fence the land to an extent of 40’ x 300’ belonging to the petitioner even

¶39

¶40

though boundaries and measurements are different and respondents 6 to 8 cannot have any claim over said land.

¶41

Per-contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that as per phodi durasthi made, parties would be entitled to protect their possession, as such, impugned communication has been issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶42

Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of impugned order dated 29.7.2017 Annexure-Q it would clearly disclose that phodi durasthi work which was carried out by the Assistant Director of Land Records came to be set aside by 2^nd respondent herein and having dismissed the appeal has made an observation that further bifurcation is required to be made by the jurisdictional Tahsildar for implementing the order of the Assistant Director of Land Records and accordingly, directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to undertake the exercise of bifurcating the lands. Even before such an exercise could be

¶43

¶44

undertaken, 3^rd respondent has sought to implement the order dated 12.1.2005 by issuing direction to the jurisdictional police to provide police protection. If there is any inter se dispute between the private parties, the jurisdictional Tahsildar would not get jurisdiction to either seek for police help or to issue direction for implementation of the order passed under the Act and it is for the parties to take steps in accordance with law. As such, impugned communication dated 2.11.2017 Annexure-R would not be sustainable in law. Hence, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶47

(ii) Impugned communication dated 2.11.2017 Annexure-R is quashed. However, 3^rd respondent would be at liberty to undertake the exercise as ordered by the Appellate Authority by order dated 29.7.2017 for bifurcating the revenue records as per the order of the Assistant Director of Land Records dated 12.1.2005.

¶48

¶49

(iii) Respondents 3 to 5 would also be at liberty to

¶50

work out their rights, if any, in accordance with

¶51

law.

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

sp/bkp

Smt Channamma v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Channamma v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Malagi Basappa Vs the Tahsildar

Sri. a H Kuberappa Vs the State of Karnataka

The Agriculturist Processing Industrial Vs the State of Karnataka

Narasimhamurthy Vs the Secretary

Smt. Lalitha Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt. Sujatha. N. G. Vs the Tahasildar