SRI KRISHNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ jurisdiction is not one for working out as to who has purchased what extent of land in which survey number, what extent he is able to assert and enjoy claiming possession, what other extent is encroached on public land and all such matters can only be fit matters for examination in civil suits and not either by the revenue authorities who tinker with the entries in the revenue entries, even when there is no corresponding change of ownership rights and many a times contrary to such ownership rights also and find it a fertile area for indulging in corruption and nepotism.

(2.) The present writ petition is not any better with the Petitioner claiming ownership rights in respect of some extent of land in Sy. No. 302 of Anekal Village and some extent of land said to have been purchased in the name of his wife as per a sale deed dated 9.7.1969, by his wife and the other by the Petitioner as per sale deed dated 4.5.1973.

(3.) It is the version of the Petitioner that the revenue entries reflected such change only in the year 1995-96 and some corRespondents (sic) correspondence had taken place in this regard in the year 2005-06, but the third Respondent in this petition--the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore, appears to have found things not very proper and for a good measure, there are as many as six private parties impleaded as Respondents to these petitions, with fifth Respondent claiming to have acquired title from Respondents 6 to 10 and on the pretext of such sale deeds in his favour, is trying to interfere with the lands that the Petitioner or his wife had purchased and particularly, trying to close some part of his land describing that to be as part of a public road and one providing for a way to a public tank located in Sy. No. 304 of the same village and at the instance of the fifth Respondent, the revenue authorities, particularly, the Assistant Commissioner having effected changes in the revenue records for reducing the extent shown, saying that an extent of 3 guntas of land from the land purchased by the Petitioner, being shown as kharab lajid and that it is not shown as holding of the Petitioner etc.