RENUKA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a person like the Petitioner has acquired good title, interest and what not, under two sale transactions of the same day, dated 19-4-1995 said to have been executed by Respondents 10 to 12 who in turn claim right, title and interest in the subject lands under a grant proceedings evidenced by a saguvali chit dated 5-9-1978 to an extent of 4 acres 38 guntas each, in gomal land bearing Sy. Nos. 49, 52 and 53 situated at Benagatte Grama, Shanthi Grama Hobli, Hassan Taluk and District, irrespective of such a grant, having been cancelled by revenue authorities subsequently, and particularly as is perhaps sought to be done after a lapse of about 18 years from the date of the initial grant can never be determined by revenue authorities by themselves as they are the very authorities who are acting so and validity of such actions if any person wants to get tested can be done so, only by making the orders if any subject-matter of a civil suit impleading necessary parties and not by way of jumping into the High Court by invoking writ jurisdiction Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) But definitely not even before such proceedings have in fact happened i.e., even before the grant orders or in any way cancelled by the revenue authorities and more so in respect of an order passed at an interlocutory stage, an order passed during the pendency of some proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, at the instance of interested villagers who feel aggrieved that a land reserved for pasteurization of village cattle described as gomal land should not have been divulged by the revenue authorities even in the year 1978 as per the grant orders.

(3.) Assuming that the Assistant Commissioner has by his impugned order initiated such a process for inquiring into the situation by directing the Tahsildar to take action under the provisions of Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 and the Deputy Commissioner in his turn has lent further support to such an order, that proceeding definitely does not merit examination in writ jurisdiction.