Chandrashekhar S/O. Nagaraj ... vs Smt. Basavarajeshwari Alias ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5848 Kant

                               1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

          WRIT PETITION No.104717/2021 (KLR - RES)

Between

Chandrashekhar s/o Nagaraj
Anehousur, Age about 41 yrs.,
Occ: Business and agriculture
r/o Ward No.16, J P Nagar Karatagi
Gangavathi Taluka, Dist: Koppal-583229.         ...Petitioner

(By Sri Deepak Maganur, Advocate)

And

1.    Smt.Basavarajeshwari @
      Sumag w/o late Amarayya
      Aged 43 yrs, Occ: Nil
      r/o Karatagi, Gangavathi
      Dist. Koppal - 583229.
2.    Sri Gouri d/o late Amarayya
      Aged 15 yrs, Occ: Nil
      r/o Karatagi, Gangavathi
      Dist. Koppal - 583229.

3.    Sripriya d/o late Amarayya
      Aged 11 yrs, Occ: Nil
      r/o Karatagi, Gangavathi
      Dist. Koppal - 583229.
      (R2 and R3 are minors hence
      represented by respondent No.1)
                                  2




4.    Siddaramayya s/o late Amarayya
      Aged 33 yrs, Occ: Agriculture
      r/o Karatagi, Gangavathi
      Dist. Koppal - 583229.

5.    Marulasiddayya s/o Rudrayya Hiremath
      Aged 33 yrs, Occ: Agriculture
      r/o Karatagi, Gangavathi
      Dist. Koppal - 583229.

6.    The Deputy Commissioner, Koppal
      Koppal - 583231.

7.    The Assistant Commissioner
      Koppal-583231.

8.    The Tahashildar Gangavathi
      583227.

9.    The Town Municipal Council
      Karatagi, by its Chief Officer
      Taluk Gangavathi, Dist :
      Koppal-583229.                            ... Respondents

(By Smt.Girija S Hiremath, HCGP for R6 to R9,
    Sri LIngaraj Maradi, Advocate for R1 to R5)
      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed in
Rev.Petition No.50/2015 dated 22.10.2021 as illegal and
contrary to the Rules of natural justice vie Annexure-A and etc.,.
     This writ petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following:
                            ORDER

Petitioner claims that respondents No.1 to 5 executed an

agreement agreeing to provide access to the petitioner to his

land. In pursuance of the said agreement executed by

respondents No.1 to 5, the 6th respondent - Deputy

Commissioner passed an order declaring that the land of the

petitioner is a public road. Being aggrieved, respondents No.1 to

5 filed Revision Petition No.50/2015 before the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 22.10.2021

allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by

the 6th respondent. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

by virtue of the agreement executed by the respondents No.1 to

5 agreeing to provide access to the petitioner to his land, the 6th

respondent has rightly passed the impugned order declaring that

the land in question is a public road. Hence he submitted that

the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order passed

by the 6th respondent.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents No.1 to 5 would submit that the agreement alleged

to have been executed in favour of the petitioner is created and

unregistered document and as such, the 6th respondent without

issuing notice to the respondents No.1 to 5 had passed the order

declaring that the land in question is a public road. Hence, he

submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance

with law.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for the State would support the order passed by the 6th

respondent.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties.

6. Admittedly, the alleged agreement executed by

respondents No.1 to 5 is an unregistered document and the

respondents No.1 to 5 have disputed the execution of the said

agreement and the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned

order setting aside the order passed by the 6th respondent. It is

brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner had filed a civil

suit for declaring that respondents No.1 to 5 have got access to

their land for using it as road and the same is decreed. Being

aggrieved, respondents No.1 to 5 have filed a regular appeal and

the same is pending consideration.

7. Having regard to the fact that the order passed by

the 6th respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice

and also the civil dispute is pending between the parties, I do

not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the

Tribunal. Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ petition

directing the 6th respondent to reconsider the claim of the

petitioner to declare that the land in question is a public road

after affording an opportunity of being heard. The order to be

passed by the 6th respondent will be subject to out come of the

judgment and decree to be passed by the Civil Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkm