“ 5. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the first respondent that, already in regard to the questioned property, the first respondent has obtained the injunction order against the petitioner before the Civil Court, Madikeri and that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of said land etc., and accordingly he tried to justify the stand of the first respondent contending that the petitioner is not entitled to allotment of a strip of land which is in occupation of the first respondent. It appears there is said to be some dispute so far as the allotment of a strip of land adjacent to land in Sy.No.1/1 which is situated adjacent to the property in Sy.No.152, which is granted in favour of this petitioner. Ultimately, it is the grievance of the petitioner that he was in occupation and the same was encroached and as a matter of entitlement under the rehabilitation scheme and also as a Ex-serviceman to meet out the deficiency for grant of remaining extent of land ie., to an extent of 85 cents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also shown the report of the Tahasildar stating to take action against the first respondent and his brother and also submitting of the report to the police. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that, he is entitled for the grant of strip of land to an extent of 85 cents adjacent to Sy.No.152 and also it is his grievance that the land so far as grant in Sy.No.151 & 152 is only to an extent of 2.75 acres and still he is entitled for further grant of 1.25 acres.
