Karnataka High Court
Allabaksh M Itagi And Ors vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 15 April, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2993
WP No. 204297 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO.204297/2019(KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. ALLABAKSH M ITAGI
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER
2. ASIF S/O ALLABAKSH ITAGI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
3. RUSTUM S/O ALLABAKSH ITAGI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
ALL ARE R/O BEHIND ITAGI PETROL PUMP,
ATHANI ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONERS
by RENUKA (BY SRI BASAVAKIRAN G.R., ADVOCATE, FOR
Location: High SRI D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
Court Of
Karnataka AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. THE PRINCIPAL,
SAINIK SCHOOL,
ATHANI ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2993
WP No. 204297 of 2019
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
ANNEXURE-G VIZ., THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2019 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN PARTLY ALLOWING REVISION
PETITION NO. RB / LND/M / CR /105 / 2004-05 FILED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Basavakiran, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and Sri Veerangouda Malipatil, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
2. The writ petition is filed with the following
prayers:
A) Issue a writ, order or direction in
nature of certiorari quashing ANNEXURE-G,
viz., the Order dated 22.08.2019 passed by
respondent No.1 herein partly allowing Revision
Petition No.RB/LND/M/CR/105/2004-05 filed by
the respondent No.2, in the interest of justice
and equity.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2993
B) Such further or other reliefs be
granted to which the petitioner would be found
entitled to on the facts and circumstances of
the case.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners
claim that the Assistant Commissioner, Vijayapura, issued
Notification dated 24.09.1996 under No.LQ/CR-12/92-93
for acquisition of lands in Survey Nos.740/2A, 740/2 and
740/2k belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of
formation of Ring-Road. Petitioners filed writ petitions
before this Court in W.P. Nos.32351-353/1994, which was
disposed of on 08.07.1996 remitting the matter to the
Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, Assistant
Commissioner rejected the request of the petitioners for
grant of 2 acres 16 guntas in Survey No.859 to the
petitioners under Section 31(3) of the Land Acquisition
Act.
4. It is contended that the land in Survey No.859
appears to have been initially granted in favour of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2993
Principal, Sainik School, Athani Road, Vijayapura, for the
purpose of running a School.
5. It is further contended that in respect of the
said land there is a dispute, which is subject matter in
O.S. No.90/2017, now pending in R.A. No.96/2019 and
posted for judgment on 27th of this Month.
6. It is further contended that the order of the
Deputy Commissioner, which is under challenge in
Annexure - G has acted detriment to the interest of the
petitioners and therefore the order of the Deputy
Commissioner is sought to be quashed.
7. Per contra, Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and
Sri Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2
support the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
8. In the light of the rival contentions, this Court
has meticulously perused the materials on record.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2993
9. On such perusal of the materials on record,
especially Annexure-G, it is crystal clear that the Deputy
Commissioner while allowing the revision in part directed
that the parties are governed by the judgment of the Civil
Court in R.A. No.96/2019 as at Annexure-F.
10. Since, the Deputy Commissioner has not
expressed any opinion on the rights of the parties and has
directed the parties to obey the orders of the Civil Court,
no grounds are made to interfere with the said order.
11. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBS
