S. VAZEER AHMED @ VAZEER PASHA S/O SYED ABDUL KHADAR @ NANHEJAN BY HIS GPA HOLDER - SRI AMRITLAL, S/O PUKRAJ JAIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sough for quashing the order dated 30.8.1995 annexure G by the 2nd Respondent and also for a mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent lo hold a fresh inquiry and pass appropriate orders.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner, during 1912 one Syed Ahmed had purchased the property in Sy. No. 2 of Bilekahalli from one Venkataswamy and his two brothers under a registered sale deed and there is a gift of property in favour of his son Syed Moosa during August 1935. Once again, Syed Moosa executed a registered gift deed in favour of Syed Abdul Khader during November 1962 and katha also stood transferred in the name of Syed Abdul Khader and an endorsement in this regard was also obtained, Thereafter, there was once again a registered deed in favour of this Petitioner by his father Syed Abdul Khader. According to him, the document produced at annexure A, the record of rights depicts Sy. No. 2 of Bilekahalli situate near Civil Station is got entered in the name of this Petitioner and also it was in his name even during 1976 -77 and 1977 -78 and katha was also obtained. Annexure B is the endorsement issued on 14.8.1979 by the Enquiry Officer to the effect, file number given to property in Sy. No. 2, Door No. 2A having Chalta No. 4A of PT Sheet 895, on such application given to the Inquiry Officer of the City Survey by the Petitioner, since it was wrongly noted in the register, the particulars are correctly entered in the Inquiry Register and in token thereof, he issued the endorsement and also opined that Certificate in Form 9 as per Rule 83(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 will be issued after collecting the necessary fees. Annexure C is the sketch produced by the Petitioner indicating the situation of the property in Chalta No. 4A, Corporation No. 2A i.e., map indicating Thimmaiah Road, Millers Tank and the situation of the property and also recognizing four houses in the property in question. Annexure D is the application given by the Petitioner to the Assistant Director of Land Survey to issue Form 9. There is also an endorsement issued at annexure E by the Assistant Director of Land Survey to the effect that as per the endorsement given by the Petitioner records available in respect of IT Sheet 895 of Area No. 77, Chalta No. 4A, if there is an entry in the Petitioner's name however, there was no separate entry being made in respect of Chalta No. 4A in the office records by oversight as such, he cannot issue an endorsement in Form 9 for correcting the entry in the PT Sheet and the Certificate will be issued soon after the order has been obtained from the Joint Director. This order is dated 7.11.1990. Annexure F is the report submitted by the Assistant Director in respect of Ward No. 77, PT Sheet 895 noting Chalta No. 4 measuring to the extent: of 24228.4 sq.mtrs/ft. opining that this property is railway property as ascertained on the spot, orally and locally mentioning that notice could not be served. Annexure F is the subject matter of this petition, wherein the Assistant Director has reported that as per the oral inquiry and the spot inquiry, without notice to the parties concerned, order is passed indicating the property in Chalta No. 4 to the extent of 24228.4 sq mts/ft as the property of the Railways. The same was challenged by the Petitioner by moving the Joint Director. The Joint Director having treated this as a petition filed under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, has confirmed annexure F -Report submitted by the Assistant Director as the property belongs to the Railways against which, Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records. The impugned order at annexure Rl has been passed on 18th November, 1996 by the Director opining that the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, once again, another revision has been filed before the Joint Director and the Joint Director has passed an order as not maintainable on the ground that already revision has been preferred by the Petitioner which came to be dismissed and that fact has not been brought to the notice and treating the petition as appeal, impugned order dated 13.3.2009 -annexure H is passed. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order at annexure H, is before this Court on various grounds.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel has also relied upon the decision in the case of Basanti Prasad Vs. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board and Others, AIR 2009 SC 3162 us regards delay in approaching the court. In the said case, the Supreme Court has observed, where the delay is satisfactorily explained, the High Court can consider the writ petition on merits. Accordingly, learned Counsel contended that the writ petition is maintainable.