K. NARAYANA RAO Vs. SMT. LEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned order dtd. 27/7/2012 passed by the 6th respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, at Annexure-A. The background in which the revision under Sec. 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 was filed at the hands of the petitioner was that although the petitioner's father Sri K.Rama Rao was granted 5 cents of residential property in Sy.No.199/1A1D2, by the 4th respondent Tahsildar and during the life time of the petitioner's father he had put up a residential building on the granted land, nevertheless at the instance of the 1st respondent herein a survey sketch/plotting of the sites were manipulated in such a manner that the site that was allotted in favour of the petitioner's father is shown to have been allotted to 1st respondent herein. The Deputy Commissioner having considered the contentions of the rival claimants and having secured the records from the office of the Tahsildar came to a conclusion that six (6) persons were granted residential sites in the said survey number and the plotting of the sites have also been done in terms of the grant certificate issued by the Tahsildar. The Deputy Commissioner did not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner and consequently the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order.

(2.) During the course of the arguments, this Court has found that it is the contention of the petitioner that after the land in question was granted to the petitioner's father he put up a residential building on the granted land. If that is the truth, then this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that subsequently there has been manipulation of the records trying to show that the site that was allotted in favour of the petitioner's father is shown to have been allotted to respondent No.1 herein. Even otherwise, the petitioner has no grievance to putforth since admittedly he is in possession of the site that was granted in favour of his father and dwelling in the house put up by the petitioner's father. Therefore, viewed from any angle, there is no merit in the writ petition.

(3.) Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.