G.L.JEEVAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing order dtd. 10/2/2021, (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.1, confirming the order dtd. 6/10/2016 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner.

(2.) Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case are that, the land bearing Sy No.55 of Kunagali village, Holalkere Taluk, measuring to an extent of 11 acres, 25 guntas, consisting of three phods Sy No.55/1 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas, Sy No.55/2, measuring 3 acres, 30 guntas and Sy No.55/3, measuring 5 acres, 27 guntas. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners are owner in possession of the land bearing Sy No.55/1, measuring 2 acres, 8 guntas, and it is stated that, revenue records stands in the name of the petitioners. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein have made an application to the respondent No.3, for Tatkal phod and measurement of land bearing Sy No.55/3 of Kunagali village, Holalkere Taluk and during the survey work, the extent of the land belonging to the petitioners and contesting respondents was considered by the revenue authorities and found discrepancy in the measurement and as such, the respondent No.3 herein, while exercising power under Sec. 9(A) (49) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ( for short, hereinafter referred to as Act), conducted spot inspection and verified the akarband and as such, arrived at a conclusion that the revenue records pertaining to entire land covered under Sy No.55 was not tallied with the revenue documents and therefore passed order dtd. 6/10/2016 (Annexure-A), rejecting the phode in respect of the entire extent of land bearing Sy No.55 (Annexure-A). The said order was challenged by the petitioners herein before the respondent No.1 herein in RA(A) No.56/2016-17 and respondent No.1 by order dtd. 10/2/2021, rejected the appeal as per order produced at Annexure-B. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri Harish N.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Harish A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Government and Sri B.M.Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.