Prema V Pattar vs The Technical Assistant
2021 Latest Caselaw 1653 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

                           BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

           W.P.NO.109580/2016 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN

Ms. PREMA V PATTAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WIFE OF MR. VIRUPAXAPPA PATTAR
TONDIHAL 582 232
TAL. YALBURGA
DIST. KOPPAL
                                               ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B R KALAL, ADV.)

AND
1 . THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
    AND EXOFFICIO DEPUTY DIRECTOR
    OF LAND RECORDS
    O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    KOPPAL

2 . VIRUPAXAPPA PATTAR
    AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
    SON OF MR. HANUMANTHAPPA PATTAR
    KALMESHWARNAGAR
    KUKUNOOR-582 232
    TAL. YALBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1)
(R2-SERVED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO A) QUASH
ANNEXURE    C,  THE   ENDORSEMENT    BEARING   NO.BHV.NIKO/
TAM/EITRE/2015-16 DATED 09TH MARCH 2016 ISUUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 AS BAD AND NOT SUSTAINABLE AND ETC.
                                   :2:



      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                             : ORDER :

By the impugned endorsement the 1 s t respondent

has stated that the request of the petitioners for

conducting a survey and measuring the land bearing

Sy.No.287/A and Sy.No.305/A cannot be considered in

view of the interim ord er g ranted in RSA.No.6032/2011.

2. As per the copies of the judgments produced

by the learned Counsel, it is seen that

RSA.No.6032/2011 has been filed challeng ing the

judgment of the App ellate Court p assed in

R.A.No.16/2010 by which the Appellate Court has set

aside the ord er of dismissal of the suit and p roceeded

to decree the suit.

3. The original suit which had been filed was for

a decree of injunction restraining the defendant from

alienating the suit lands for otherwise creating any

charg e or encumbrance over the suit lands.

4. The p end ency of the said suit which was one

for the injunction to restrain the defend ants from

alienating the suit lands cannot be considered as an

impediment for conducting a survey. The endorsement

issued on the ground that the interim order g ranted in

RSA No.6032/2011, cannot be therefore sustainted. It

is therefore q uashed.

5. As a consequence, Respondent No.1 is

directed to consider the req uest of the petitioner for

conducting a survey and for measurement of the lands.

Writ p etition is accordingly allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE EM