R SHESHADRI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a proceeding brought before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in respect of certain action taken by the revenue authorities purporting to be in exercise of their powers under section 109 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the act' ).

(2.) PETITIONER and the 5th respondent are at logger heads in respect of certain agricultural land in Sy. Nos. 206/12 and 206/13 with regard to the extent or with regard to the extent which each person possess actually and are before the Civil Court for determination of their inter se rights. In the interregnum it is claimed that the revenue authorities while exercising their powers under Section 109 of the Act had taken some action, which according to the petitioner was without notice to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner thought it fit to challenge that in an appeal before the Joint Director of Land Records. That appeal having been allowed and the matter remanded, which was not to the liking of the 5th respondent, a further appeal was preferred to the Karnataka appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal has observed that as the Assistant Director of Land Records, was justified in taking action in sub-dividing the survey number acting on a registered sale deed and that if there were disputes between the parties, they should have it resolved in the Civil Court rather than trying to settle such disputes before the Revenue Authorities and in this view of the matter while setting aside the remand order of the Joint Director of survey and Settlement, Bangalore, confirmed the action taken by the assistant Director of Land Records sub-dividing the survey number. It is aggrieved by this order of the Appellate Tribunal the present writ petition.

(3.) SUBMISSION of Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been pre-empted of putting forth his version of the case before the authorities that as the order has been passed behind his back; that the order is not sustainable; that there was no occasion for the Tribunal to have interfered with the order of the joint Director, which was only for according opportunity to the parties and therefore the order of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed.