M K NACHAPPA Vs. M M AIYANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ jurisdiction has become a fertile area for frivolous, petty, undeserving matters to be brought and parked in the High Court which is nothing short of a gross misuse and abuse of the process of this Court.

(2.) The present writ petition does not project any different scenario. A dispute and tussle going on between the Petitioner and the first Respondent who are cousins and are warring over the dispute of the extents or otherwise in respect of a pathway said to be running adjacent or inside Sy. No. 131/1, 128/2, 138/2 and to a distance of about. 500 meters, which is described in the schedule to the plaint in O.S. No. 106/07 filed by the first Respondent herein against the very Petitioners.

(3.) Such dispute is sought to be made subject matter of this writ, petition, through the orders passed by the Respondents 2, 3 and 4 - Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively as per Annexures A, B and C invoking their powers under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. particularly appeal to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 49 and Revision to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 50 respectively and with the Petitioner asserting that the word described as 'Katanga' being not a pathway or public road is required to be resolved in this writ petition by the Petitioner seeking the following relief's.