BHADRESH N DESAI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed calling in question the correctness and legality of orders dated 27.11.2018, 28.05.2019 and 31.05.2019-Annexures-A, B-1 and B respectively passed by second respondent whereunder second respondent while considering the appeal filed under Section 49/136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, has granted interim stay of operation of the order under challenge namely has stayed the operation of mutation entries of MR No.15/1991-92 and MR No.2/1974-75. Pursuant to order of stay passed, second respondent by communication dated 28.05.2019-Annexure-B-1 has intimated respondent No.7 to extend police protection. Thereafter, respondent No.7 has issued a notice to the petitioners under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. dated 31.05.2019 - Annexure-B. Hence, this writ petition for quashing the same.

(2.) Heard Sri. H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 6, Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 and Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.9 and 10. Notice to respondent No.8 is dispensed with, since in pending R.A.No.295/2018-19 respondent No.8 herein has been arrayed as respondent No.2 in said appeal and he is yet to be served and no order adverse to his interest is being passed in the present writ petitions.

(3.) It emerges from the records that essential dispute between the parties revolves around mutation entry made by revenue authorities in respect of land bearing Sy.No.5/1 measuring 20 guntas situated at Beretena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which entry was said to have been standing in the name of petitioners at an undisputed point of time and same having been challenged by respondent Nos.3 to 5 by filing an appeal i.e., R.A.No.295/2018-19. Said appeal had been filed challenging MR No.15/1991-92 and MR No.2/1974-75 was also accompanied by an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal if at all there was delay and also contending there was no delay. This fact is also evident from the plea put forward by appellants i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein in the appeal memorandum at paragraph 15 whereunder they have contended appeal is on time and if the date of knowledge of said order is reckoned, and at the same time, they have also stated that application for condoning delay if any is also filed.