K C PRASHANTH Vs. AYYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter has come up for orders on the application in Misc. Nos. 1439 and 1440 of 2011 for impleading and for direction respectively, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, The main matter itself is taken up for disposal.

(2.) Utilization of writ Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India only for the purpose of the examination of the quality of orders passed by the revenue authorities functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short "the Act ?] and particularly while exercising powers under section 129 of the Act, in the first instance, by the Tahsildar and later either the Assistant Commissioner acting as appellate authority in terms of section 136[2] of the Act or the Deputy Commissioner acting as a revisional authority in respect of the original proceedings under section 136[3] of the Act, is nothing short of a criminal misuse of the precious, scarce time of this court.

(3.) The present writ petition appears to be one such for the simple reason that while the real dispute as urged by Sri. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Yoganarasimha, learned senior counsel for the first respondent who has appeared for Sri. Indu Shekar. Advocate for the first respondent, is a dispute relating to the land measuring an extent of 34 guntas in Sy. No.49/3 of Karivobanahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and while the petitioner claims or traces his title to a recent sale deed [comparatively] dated 31.1.1991 said to have been executed by not less than six persons by name Lakshmaiah, Venkatappa, Gangappa. Venkataswamy, Byanna, Venkatamma in respect of an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas with 8 guntas of kharab land as claimed by the petitioner, the first respondent claiming right, title and interest in the extent of 34 guntas of land through his father by name Guruswamy who it is claimed had purchased an extent of 34 guntas of land in the very survey number way back in the year 1949 as per sale transaction 7.2.1949 under on Venkataswamy, petitioner traces his title by going back to one Venkataswami Bhovi who it is claimed had acquired right, title and interest in respect of precise extent of land which the petitioner now claims to have purchased and said Venkataswami Bhovi having acquired interest in the land as per sale transaction dated 20.12.1945.