JAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 5 -12 -2007 issued by the third respondent, which is impugned at Annexure -B to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for mandamus to direct the third respondent to conduct the survey in accordance with law and to prepare the sketch.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the property bearing Survey No. 10/1 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas situate at Kengal Kempohalli Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk. The petitioner claims that the revenue records also stands in the name of the petitioner. However, while carrying out the mutation order, the revenue authorities had wrongly indicated only 35 guntas of land in block No. 3 and in that context, the dispute has arisen. The fourth respondent herein claims right to certain other extents of the property in the very same Survey No. 10/1. It is in that context, there was a suit for injunction between the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein in O.S. No. 414 of 1995. The suit instituted by the fourth respondent was dismissed and subsequently the regular appeal filed by him is also said to have been dismissed. In view of the dispute relating to the extent of the property, there were several other proceedings between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. In order to settle these aspects of the matter, the petitioner has sought for survey of the land so that the extent owned by the petitioner based on the documents can be properly ascertained and the boundaries could be fixed. In response to the request made by the petitioner, the Tahsildar -respondent 3 has issued an endorsement dated 5 -12 -2007 whereunder it is indicated that the survey cannot be conducted in view of the pendency of the suit is O.S. No. 35 of 2003. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said endorsement.

(3.) IN the light of the rival contentions, insofar as the extent to which the petitioner claims right, the document would have to be relied upon by the petitioner and based on the said document, the survey would ascertain the actual identity and extent of the property. Insofar as the inter se dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent in the earlier suit, it is evident from the papers on record that the suit as well as the regular appeal in that regard filed by the fourth respondent has been dismissed. However, in the impugned endorsement, a reference is made to O.S. No. 35 of 2003. A copy of the plaint in the said suit has also been produced along with this petition. A perusal of the same would indicate that the petitioner is not a party to the said suit. But the fourth respondent herein is the fifth defendant in the said suit. The suit in question is an inter se partition suit between the family members of the fourth respondent herein. In the schedule to the said suit the property bearing Survey No. 10/1 to an extent of 13 acres 39 guntas is also included as one of the items of the property. The fact that there is a larger extent than the said extent in Survey No. 10/1 is not disputed. Since the third respondent had not carried out survey in accordance with law,' the petitioner had also approached the Lokayuktha by preferring a complaint in this regard. Though the said proceedings may not be directly relevant to the issue but the sequence, which occurred therein, requires to be noticed.