THYAMAPPA GOWDA Vs. PARAMESHWARA NAIKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner claims to be a grantee of certain extent of land of 3 acres 60 guntas in S. No. 12/2 situated in Peraja village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. Petitioner claims that he has been granted this extent of land as per the order of grant dated 10.11.1972, a copy of which is produced as per Annexure -A to the writ petition.

(2.) THE first Respondent herein, who it appears, claims to be a person who has been granted 1.65 acres of land in S. No. 13 of the same village and which survey number is adjacent to the land granted to the Petitioner as per the petition averments. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the action on the part of the first Respondent, who it is alleged, has been trying to encroach into his land to an extent of 60 cents purporting to be based on certain sketch which has been prepared by the Tahsildar, Bantwal Taluk, a copy of which is produced as Annexure -G with an index to the same. It is the case of the Petitioner that the first Respondent has been trying to interfere with his lands and it is also the further case of the Petitioner that the first Respondent in fact, has never been granted any land in S. No. 12 as is claimed by him, that there are no records at all to this effect, but nevertheless such records are either fabricated or sought to be built up on the basis of subsequent sketch issued by the Tahsildar. The Petitioner has asserted such averments on the basis of his experience inasmuch as inspite of the best efforts on the part of the Petitioner, authorities have not issued certified copies of the grant order made in favour of the first Respondent and on the other hand, they have always been pleading there are no records.

(3.) SRI K. Chandranath Ariga, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the second Respondent Deputy Commissioner has, inspite of repeated reminders about the same, failed to take any action in respect of such representation and has further submitted that under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, the Revenue authorities are under an obligation to prepare a list indicating the extent of land available for such grants under the Land Grant Rules in a particular village and are also required to display the same in the Revenue Office of the village and none of these steps having been taken in respect of the grant made in favour of the first Respondent and inspite of the Petitioner's repeated requests, the third Respondent -authority not having taken any action to hold an enquiry or determine the rights of the parties, particularly in the context of the first Respondent trying to encroach upon the land of the Petitioner to an extent of 60 cents, the Petitioner is left with no remedy except to seek for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the third Respondent to hold a proper enquiry and to give a finding as to the actual grant made in favour first Respondent as well as the validity of the sketch, a copy of which is produced at Annexure -G to the writ petition. 6. A reading of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules clearly indicates that the said provision does not give raise to any individual or private right to any person. It is a provision prescribing the procedure to be followed by the Revenue Authorities before any land in a village is granted to an applicant. At any rate, the provision cannot be construed as a provision conferring a right in favour of the Petitioner. The provision also does not compel the authority to hold an enquiry whenever a dispute arises amongst the several grantees. In such a situation, the question of issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus at the instance of the Petitioner does not arise. 7. The Petitioner admittedly is seeking for issue of a writ based on the grant order dated 10.11.1972 granting to him an extent of 3 acres 60 guntas of lands in S. No. 12. Even according to the petition averments, the first Respondent has been granted land in S. No. 13/2 to an extent of 1.65 acres. There cannot be any conflict or dispute between the Petitioner and the first Respondent in respect of the two survey numbers. If any person including the first Respondent claiming under any other right, grant or order, either encroaches or trespass into the land which has already been granted in favour of the Petitioner, the appropriate remedy of the Petitioner is to seek relief in a Civil Court, assert his right based on the grant that has already been made in his favour and protect his interest and possession in the land. 8. In my view, this writ petition is misconceived. A writ as prayed for cannot be issued. Accordingly this writ petition is rejected without issue of rule. No order as to costs.