Karnataka High Court
Paulraj vs The Deputy Commissioner on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
W.A.NO.941 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)
IN
W.P.NO.22118 OF 2018 (KLR-RR-SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. PAULRAJ
S/O LATE CHINNADEVASAHAYAM
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
2. SESARAJU
S/O LATE CHINNADEVASAHAYM
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
3. PANNIR SELVAM
S/O LATE CHINNADEVASAHAYAM,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT MASIL MATAU, SANDANAPALYA
MARTALLI VILLAGE
RAMAPURA HOBLI
KOLLEGAL TALUK
CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT - 571313
... APPELLANTS
(BY. SRI RODDA VEERSHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SARASWATHI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT
CHAMARAJNAGAR - 571313
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLLEGAL SUB DIVISION
TALUKA KOLLEGAL
CHAMARAJNAGAR - 571313
3. TAHASILDAR
KOLLEGAL TALUKA
CHAMARAJNAGAR - 571313
4. KOLANDAI THERESA
W/O LATE SOSAYAPPAN
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/A MASIL MATAU, SANDANAPALYA
MARTALLI VILLAGE
RAMPURA HOLBI
TALUKA KOLLGEGAL
DISTRICT CHAMARAJANGAR - 571313
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4
OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2020 MADE IN
W.P.NO.22118/2018 (KLR) PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; b) ALLOW THE
W.P.NO.22118/2018 (KLR) FILED BY THE APPELLANTS
HEREIN, BEFORE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY; c) GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER
RELIEFS AS ARE JUST EVEN INCLUDING THE COSTS
OF THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
3
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal has been filed
against the order dated 20.03.2020 passed by the
learned Single Judge, by which writ petition
preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that the husband of respondent
No.4 was the elder brother of the appellants and
that they are the members of a joint family. It was
pleaded that the appellants as well as respondent
No.4 were in cultivating possession of the land
measuring 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.182/3 at
Martalli Village, Ramapura Hobli, Kollegal Taluk,
Chamarajnagar District.
3. In view of the fact that the parties were
in cultivating possession of the land in question,
Assistant Commissioner by an order dated
04.11.1978 had granted land measuring 4 acres
20 guntas to the elder brother of the appellants.
It was also pleaded that the parties therefore were
in separate cultivating possession and their
names were also mutated in the revenue records.
It was also pleaded that the Assistant
Commissioner without verifying the records had
set aside the mutation entries made in favour of
the appellants. The aforesaid order was
challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, the
Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision
petition.
4. The order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner was
challenged by the appellants in a writ petition.
The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ
petition preferred by the appellants. In the
aforesaid factual background, this appeal has
been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that respondent No.4 has raised
construction on the agricultural land. Therefore,
stay should be granted.
6. We have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellants
and perused the records.
7. It is pertinent to note that the
appellants had filed a suit namely,
O.S.No.166/2008 seeking the relief of declaration
of title and permanent injunction. The aforesaid
civil suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree
dated 08.12.2016. The aforesaid judgment and
decree has attained finality. However, without
disclosing the factum of the civil suit, the writ
petition was filed. Learned Single Judge has
rightly dismissed the writ petition preferred by
the appellants.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, we do
not find any ground to differ with the view taken
by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mds/-
