1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION No.14654 OF 2016 (KLR CON) BETWEEN: Giriyappa Gowda S/o Chennappa Gowda Aged 56 years Polya House, Kabaka House Puttur Taluk, D.K.District 574201. PETITIONER (By Smt Neeraja Karanth, Advocate) AND: 1. The Deputy Commissioner D.K.District, Mangalore D.K. 575001 2. Ravindra S/o Jinnappa Gowda Major, Polya House, Kabaka House Puttur Taluk D.K.District - 574201 RESPONDENTS (By Shri Laxminarayana, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1)
2 This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 11.12.2015 passed by R-1 vide Annexure-A. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following: O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner s father was the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.129/4 measuring 1 acre 24 cents in Polya, Kabaka Village, Puttur Taluk, which he had purchased in the year 1975. petitioner s father is said to have died in the year 1978. The In respect of the land bearing Sy.No.129/6 which is adjacent to the petitioner s land, occupancy right was granted under the Land Reforms Act, 1961, in favour of one Ishwara Gowda, in the year 1979. It is stated that one Jinnappa Gowda had purchased the said Sy.No.129/6 from Ishwara Gowda. The father of Respondent No.2, namely Jinnappa Gowda is said to have died in the year 2014 and inexplicably, three days after his death, an
3 application is said to have been filed seeking conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes. It transpires that the petitioner and his brothers had partitioned the property referred to above, under a registered Partition Deed dated 17.05.2014 and an extent of 61 cents in land bearing Sy.No.129/4, fell to the share of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 is said to have passed an order against the applicant seeking conversion dated 3.7.2014, wherein an extent of 10 cents of land was sanctioned for commercial purposes and 26 cents for residential purposes. 3. The petitioner s grievance is that there is a large difference between the survey sketch prepared during the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the second respondent s father and the survey sketch sought to be presented at the time of conversion. His case is that it was deliberately manipulated by Respondent No.2 with ulterior motives. It is aggrieved by this conversion order by virtue of which the second respondent is said to be interfering with the petitioner s land that the petitioner is said to have filed an appeal under Section 25 and
4 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before the first respondent. The Respondent No.2 had entered appearance and had filed objections denying possession of the petitioner over land bearing Sy.No.129/4. Though the second respondent has stated that he is exercising possession only over his land in Sy.No.129/6, he had in fact encroached on the property of the petitioner and it is by virtue of the conversion order which was filed on behalf of a dead person and which was granted without reference to the actual survey sketch and on the basis of manipulated survey sketch, thereby laying claim to a portion of the petitioner s property. The second respondent, to compound his illegal acts has even sought for a declaration of his title over a portion of the petitioner s land and has also sought for injunctory reliefs. The petitioner is said to have entered appearance therein and has raised a counter claim in respect of that portion of the land which is sought to be interfered with by Respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner
5 however is not instructed as to the particulars of the pending suit. 4. In any event, the conversion order being sought to be questioned on the ground that it is irregularly granted in favour of the respondent in respect of his property, cannot be the subject matter of this petition. On the other hand, the allegations of interference with the petitioner s land would be a cause of action which is being pursued in the pending suit. Therefore, there is no warrant for this court to interfere insofar as the violation or otherwise of the conversion order which does not pertain to the petitioner and it is granted in favour of the second respondent in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.129/6 with which the petitioner has no concern. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE KS