SRINIVAS, S/O. SHRI LINGAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001 AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 3. In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus against respondents 2 to 7 to consider the representations submitted by him vide Annexures L to R. By these representations, the petitioner has brought to the notice of the authorities concerned the fact that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of one acre of land comprised in Sy.No.20/5 situated at Roopena Agrahara. Begur Hobli. Bangalore South Taluk and that the Revenue Authorities had found that the petitioner was entitled for his name to be recorded in the khatha in respect of the said land. The petitioner has placed reliance on the order passed by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk dated 05.05.2007 and the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District disposing of the revision petition filed by respondents 9 to 11 herein challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar.

(2.) BASED on the orders of the Revenue Authorities, petitioner has contended that as he has been held to be a person entitled for getting his name entered in the khatha in respect of the land in question, all transactions that had taken place at the instance of respondents 9 to 11 such as conversion, power supply obtained from BESCOM for supply of power, clearance from Urban Development Authority and the Deputy Director General of Civil Aviation, Fire and Emergency Services and the Pollution Control Board were illegal and deserved to be cancelled. Accordingly the petitioner has made these representations Annexure L to R to various Authorities. Alleging that all these representations are not considered by the Authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate direction.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusal of the order passed by this Court which is produced at Annexure -H it is seen that this Court while declining to interfere with the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities has observed at para 7 that it was not for this Court to pronounce upon the merits of the claims but suffice to observe that it was open to the aggrieved person to approach civil court and seek suitable declaration regarding the right, title and interest in respect of the subject land and work out their remedy elsewhere in accordance with law.