SUNNY AUGASTIN Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was in unauthorised cultivation of land bearing Sy. No. 23/1A, 1B2 of Nelyadi Village in Mangalore District. On the application filed by him under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, his unauthorised cultivation was regularised by issuing Saguvali Chit as per Annexure -C dated 7.1.1997. That was challenged by the 4th Respondent in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by his order at Annexure -E dated 31.3.1999 allowed the appeal, and set aside the Saguvali Chit at Annexure -C and ordered to take the land into the possession of Government and to submit proposal to reserve the land for public purpose. The said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in the second appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act by his order at Annexure -F dated 20.11.2000. Petitioner is seeking to quash both these orders in this writ petition.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the land in question was regularised under Annexure -C in favour of the Petitioner. The same has been set -aside in the appeal preferred by the 4th Respondent. 4th Respondent claimed that an extent of 0 -07 cents had been granted to him and he was aggrieved by the regularisation made in favour of the Petitioner. It is pertinent to note that if the claim of 4th Respondent was genuine, he would not have kept quiet when the Assistant Commissioner ordered to take the land into the possession of the Government and to reserve it for public purpose. He would have preferred appeal questioning the legality and validity of the said order. But 4th Respondent did not do so. Though he claimed that the extent stated above was granted in his favour, he questioned the regularisation made in favour of the Petitioner and at the same time he remained silent when the Assistant Commissioner passed adverse order at Annexure -E against both. This shows that the rivalry exhibited by the 4th Respondent against the Petitioner. Petitioner did not kept quiet as was done by the 4th Respondent. He has questioned the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner, which resulted in failure. Therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner at the instance of 4th Respondent was not warranted.

(3.) WRIT Petition is allowed and impugned orders at Annexures -E and F are hereby quashed.