KADAPPA APPAYYA Vs. TAHSILDAR GOKAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, the; petitioner has challenged an order d 16-11-77 of the Taluka Magistrate, Gokak (Ext.B), by which he has directed the petitioner to vacate 4ft of road from village end to the touch of river.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of an agricultural land bearing block No. 1A measuring 39 guntas of land situated in Shigiholi village Gokak Taluk, and that he is personally cultivating it and is in its actual possession. According to the petitioner, there is no road much less a public road on this land It is also his case that he has instituted an original suit in OS.92 of 1977 in the Court of the Munsiff, Gokak, for a declaration and a permanet injunction restraining respondents 2 to 6 herein who are the defendants in that suit. Lastly, it is averred by the petitioner that on an application made by him, the learned Munsiff Gokak, has granted a temporary injunction restraining respondents 2 to 6 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property pending disposal of his suit. Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 6, does not dispute the assertion of the petitioner that he has instituted OS.92/77 in the Court of the Munsiff Gokak, and in that suit the learned Munsiff has granted an order of temporary injunction and that the same is still in force. While the matter is pending in the Civil Court, it appears respondents 2 to 6 and several other villagers moved the Tahsildar, Gokak, with a representation to protect the rights of the villagers in a public road which, according to them, exists in Block No.1A. On that representation, the Tahsildar, Gokak, appears to have visited the disputed land on 16-11-77 and has issued a direction which reads thus : No. MAG|SR-109 Gokak, 16-11-77 Tahsildar visited the spot along with the Advocate Sri R.T.Kul- karni and P.Patil and other villagers direction issued to vacate 4ft of road from village end to the touch of river. The case also pending before Civil Court. Hence, at present the papers are ordered to be filed. Sd|- Taluka Magistrate, Gokak.

(3.) Sri B.V.Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the order passed by the Tahsildar and Taluka Magistrate, Gokak, is wholly without jurisdiction and is contrary to the terms of the temporary injunction issued by the learned Munsiff in OS.92/77 and is therefore liable to be set aside. Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 6 and Sri C. Shivappa, learned High Court Govt Pleader appearing for respohdent-1 supported the order on various grounds and urged that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedv available under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1964 Act') and therefore it is not a case for my interference.