SUBHAS BHIMAGOUDA PATIL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the PT Sheet in HBC/MH-86-2008-09 dated 16.07.2012 prepared by the respondent No.4 vide Annexure-C and impugned orders dated 21.03.2014 bearing No.BND/APL/SR-01-2013-14 passed by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-D and order dated 20.03.2017 bearing No.BND/APL/SR-04/2014-15 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-E and order dated 26.06.2018 bearing No.RB/LRAP/PHODI/02/2017-18 passed by the respondent No.1 produced at Annexure-F.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and learned HCGP for the respondents-State.

(3.) The petitioners are the owners in possession of the land bearing RS No.13/1 of Kamatnur village in Hukkeri Taluk, whereas respondent No.6 is the adjacent owner in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.14 measuring 6 acres 16 guntas of land. It is stated that subsequently, respondent No.6 has sold 25 guntas of land out of 6 acres 16 guntas. It is stated that respondent No.6 made an application for survey of land and to fix the boundaries in Sy.No.14 and 13/1 relating to the petitioners as well as respondent No.6. Notice of survey was issued to both petitioners and respondent No.6 and survey was conducted on 30.05.2012. Accordingly, after survey, Annexure-C PT sheet was prepared. On preparation of PT sheet, it was noticed that the petitioners are in encroachment of the land to an extent of 35 guntas in Sy.No.14 of Kamatnur village. Aggrieved by the said survey and preparation of PT sheet, wherein the petitioners were shown that they were in encroachment of 35 guntas, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the respondent No.3-Assistant Director of Land Records and Survey Settlement. Respondent No.3 after conducting fresh survey, was of the view that PT sheet prepared as per Annexure-C is proper and correct. It is stated that while conducting fresh survey, notices were issued to both parties. Notice was served on petitioner No.2 and other petitioners refused to receive the notice. It is stated that the survey had taken place on 20.12.2013. Aggrieved by the order of respondent No.3, the petitioners herein filed an appeal before the respondent No.2-Deputy Director of Land Records. Respondent No.2 also got conducted fresh survey by serving notice on the petitioners as well as respondent No.6. On fresh survey also, it is found that PT sheet prepared as per Annexure-C is correct and in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioners filed revision under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No.1 by his detailed order rejected the revision. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.