THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has called into question the order dated 9-12-2014 (Annexure-F) passed by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Section 6 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 ('KVOA Act' for short). The facts of the case in brief are that one Venkatesh, brother of the respondent 4 had availed of financial assistance from the KSFC. He had mortgaged the Site bearing No. 119 measuring 26 guntas carved out of the land at Survey No. 402/1 of Mangalvarpet Village, Channapatna Taluk. On account of his committing default in the payment of the amounts, the said property was brought to auction. The petitioner is an auction purchaser. KSFC executed the sale deed, dated 22-12-1993 (Annexure-A) in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner claiming to be the owner of 10 guntas standing at adjoining Survey No. 403 filed an application under Section 6 of the KVOA Act for the re-grant of the land. On the said application being turned down by the Deputy Commissioner, this petition is filed.

(2.) Sri Srinivas V., the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that going by the boundaries as shown by the KSFC in the sale deed, the petitioner has become the owner of the 10 guntas of land also. He submits that in case of conflict between the boundary and the measurement, boundary has to prevail over the measurement. He submits that as the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of the authorized holder, it has made an application for the regrant of the land. He maintains that the entries in the record of rights clearly show that the land at Survey No. 403 is also an inam land.

(3.) Sri J.S. Halashetti, the learned Counsel for the respondent 4 submits that the sale deed, dated 22-12-1993 (Annexure-A) executed by K.S.F.C. in favour of the petitioner states that what is sold to the petitioner is Site No. 119 measuring 26 guntas out of the land carved at Sy. No. 402/1. Now the petitioner is agitating for 10 guntas situated in the land standing at Sy. No. 403 which was never sold to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has encroached 10 guntas of the land at Sy. No. 403 belonging to the respondent 4.