R LAKSHMAN @ LAKSHMANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit, to get an order of temporary injunction in respect of his private landed property is before this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent/Deputy Commissioner to consider the representations given by the petitioner dated 30.01.2017, 16.05.2017 and 26.05.2017, as per Annexures-A, B and C respectively, to take suitable action against the respondents 4 to 7 and to declare that they have no right to put up construction in the schedule property morefully described in the writ petition.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the piece and parcel of the landed property bearing Sy.No.69/2C4 situated at Singanayakanahalli, Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring about 3¼ guntas morefully described in the schedule to the memorandum of writ petition. It is contended that the larger extent of the schedule property belongs to the grand father of the petitioner viz., Muniswamappa and after his demise, the property devolved upon his two sons Ramaiah and Narayanappa. The petitioner is the son of Ramaiah and the fourth respondent is the son of Narayanappa, fifth respondent is the daughter of Narayanappa. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are the sons of fifth respondent. The larger extent of the landed property bearing Sy.No.69/2C4 was divided between Ramaiah and Narayanappa and the schedule property mentioned in the writ petition continued to be in the name of deceased Ramaiah, the father of the petitioner. After his death in the year 1991, the schedule property devolved upon the mother of the petitioner by name Nagamma, the petitioner and his younger brother viz., Shivashankara. Thereafter, there was a division in the family and the schedule property was given to the share of the petitioner and his brother Shivashankara. The revenue entries in respect of the schedule property was mutated in the joint names of the petitioner and his brother Shivashankara by virtue of the mutation order passed by the jurisdictional village accountant vide M.R.No.5/93-94. On 22.01.1988, panchayath parikath was entered into among the family members of the petitioner.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that ever since the division of the family properties way back in the year 1988, the schedule property has continued to be in the joint names of the petitioner and his brother. The revenue entries pursuant to the order of mutation passed in M.R.No.5/1993-94 stood in the joint names of the petitioner and his brother Shivashankara. It is further contended that the respondents, who are utter strangers to the schedule property, who own bit of their land in the larger extent of Sy.No.69/2C4 on the western and southern side, are attempting to encroach upon the schedule property, without having any manner of right, title and interest. Therefore, the petitioner made representations to the Deputy Commissioner to take action against respondent Nos.4 to 7. Since no action has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.