LAXMAN RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions for the relief sought for, are nothing but abuse the process of law and dragging the matter one way or the other.

(2.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions to hold and declare that Annexure-G viz., the Tippani dated 31.05.2016 issued by the respondent No.7 pertaining to Sy.No.470 of Humnabad is nonest. Consequently restore the earlier Tippani pertaining to Sy.No.470 of Humnabad at Annexure-A and direct the respondent No.7 to conduct the survey of land Sy.No.470 of Humnabad as per the Tippani at Annexure-A and not as per the Tippani dated 31.05.2016 at Annexure-G.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that, on 07.04.2016 the respondent No.8 without making the adjoining owners as party obtained an order in for increasing his extent of land. Based on the said order dated 07.04.2016 passed by this Court, on 31.05.2016 the respondent No.8 has got changed the Tippani by increasing his extent of land. On learning about the said change of Tippani on 18.01.2017, one Manikappa Gada who is an adjoining owner of Sy.No.465 preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.200556/2016 before the Division Bench of this Court. The same was came to be allowed and order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in was restored. After remand the matter, the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 06.12.2017 disposed off the matter afresh with directions to conduct the survey afresh after notice to interested person. In pursuance of the said order, on 18.10.2018 notice issued to the petitioners and same was served on 29.10.2018 fixing the date of survey on 03.11.2018. The petitioners have filed objections on 30.10.2018 before the respondents No.6 to 8 requesting them to conduct the survey and demarcate the land as per the Tippanni as it stood before being changed on 31.05.2016 which changes are now nonest. However, the respondents No.6 to 8 have pleaded their inability to do so and have directed the petitioners to seek necessary clarifications from this Court regarding the same. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief as sought for.