Karnataka High Court
Smuel S/O Immanuel Gowder vs Prema W/O Shashikant Sankannavar on 16 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6434
WP No. 81876 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO.81876/2013(LR)
BETWEEN:
SAMUEL
S/O. IMMANUEL GOWDER,
AGE: 76 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O: S.P.G.CHURCH COMPOUND,
RIVINGTON ROAD,
BETAGERI, TQ: GADAG - 582 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G. N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PREMA
W/O. SHASHIKANT SANKANNAVAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MASARI EXTENSION AREA,
Digitally NEAR E.CI. CHURCH, GADAG,
signed by
MANJANNA E DIST: GADAG - 582 101.
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka 2. SIDDARAMAPPA
S/O. SHIVAPPA VENKTAPUR,
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: REAL ESTATE BUSINESS,
R/O: VIVEKANAND NAGAR,
NEAR BAPUJI SCHOOL,
HATALAGERI ROAD,
EXTENSION AREA, GADAG,
DIST: GADAG - 582 103.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
GADAG SUB-DIVISION,
GADAG - 582 103.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6434
WP No. 81876 of 2013
4. THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELETED AS PER
BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
COURT ORDER
M.S.BUILDING,
DATED 13.09.2013
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R3;
R1 IS SERVED;
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R4 IS DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 13.09.2013)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN "COMMON
JUDGMENT" DATED: 22.07.2013, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - BANGALORE, -RESPONDENT NO.4 IN
APPLICATION NO.357/2010 AND APPLICATION NO.1089/2011, VIDE
ANNEXURE-T. CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST.
COMMISSIONER, GADAG IN KLR/AP/156/2008-09 DATED:
28/04/2010, VIDE ANNEXURE-N SINCE THE SAID ORDER IS THE
CONSIDERED ORDER BASED ON THE SOUND PRINCIPLES OF LAW
AND NATURAL JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6434
WP No. 81876 of 2013
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this court for issuance
of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned
order dated 22.07.2013, passed by respondent No.4,
produced as per Annexure-T and restoration of the order
of the Assistant Commissioner, Gadag dated 28.04.2010
produced as per Annexure-N.
2. Heard the learned counsel
Sri.G.N.Narasammanavar for the petitioner and learned
HCGP for respondent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the land in
question. The petitioner is their neighbour. Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 purchased the land described in the petition
under registered sale deed and started obstructing the
petitioner from using his property. Petitioner had filed suit
in O.S.No.125/2006 for declaration and for injunction,
against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Since the respondents
continued to obstruct the right of way to use the land by
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6434
the petitioner, and since the acquisition of land by the
respondents is in contravention of Section 79-A of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as it was before
amendment (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short),
the petitioner given representation to the Deputy
Tahasildar, Betageri, upon which a proceeding was
initiated as provided under law. The petitioner was also a
party in the said proceedings. The revenue inspector after
holding enquiry cancelled the mutation as per
M.E.No.155/05-06 standing in the name of respondent
No.1. The Tahasildar, Gadag recommended the matter to
the Assistant Commissioner, Gadag to take suitable action
under Section 79-A of the Act. The Assistant
Commissioner, accordingly initiated proceedings and
issued notice to the petitioner and respondents. The
Assistant Commissioner has passed the order as per
Annexure-N holding that acquisition of the land by
respondent No.1 is in contravention of Section 79-A of the
Act and therefore, the sale transaction was cancelled and
the land in question was ordered to be taken over by the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6434
government. Impugning the said order, respondents have
challenged the same before the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal. Where the appeal preferred by respondent No.1
was allowed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner
was set aside. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that since the petitioner is the complainant, who filed the
complainant before the Deputy Tahasildar and initiated
proceedings against respondent No.1, he is aggrieved by
the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as
per Annexure-T and the same is being challenged before
this Court. Since there is a clear violation of Section 79-A
of the Act, learned counsel prays for allowing the writ
petition by restoring the order of the Assistant
Commissioner passed as per Annexure-N.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader opposing the petition submitted that the petitioner
has no locus-standi to challenge the order Annexure-T.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6434
The petitioner is not the owner nor he is interested in the
land in question. He is just a neighbor, who filed the
complaint before the Deputy Tahasildar. Therefore, he has
no locus-standi to maintain the petition. Accordingly, he
prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Perused the materials on record.
7. The petitioner is admittedly the nighbour of
respondent No.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that
respondent Nos.1 & 2 are obstructing the petitioner for
making use of the land, which was purchased by
respondent No.1 under the registered sale deed. It is
alleged that there is violation of Section 79-A of the Act
and a representation in that regard appears to have been
filed before the Deputy Tahasidlar. On the basis of the
same, the proceedings were initiated against respondent
No.1 and the Assistant Commissioner passed an order as
per Annexure-N ordering to confiscate the property to the
Government. In view of the contravention of Section 79-A
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6434
of the Act, the said order was set aside by the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal by passing Annexure-T.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a
position to convenience the Court regarding his locus-
standi to file and maintain the writ petition even though he
was a party before the Assistant Commissioner and the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner has no locus-
standi to maintain this writ petition. He is not the owner of
the property nor he is interested in the same. The only
grievances raised by the petitioner is that respondent
Nos.1 & 2 are not allowing the petitioner to make use of
their land and therefore the same is to be confiscated to
the Government. If at all there was any obstruction by
respondent Nos.1 & 2 for usage of their land by the
petitioner, the remedy for the petitioner is elsewhere, but
not by challenging the order of the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal. It is to be noticed that even though the petition
is filed challenging the impugned order solely on the
ground that there is violation of Section 79-A of the Act,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6434
there are no materials in support of such contentions.
Hence, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is not
maintainable. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
MBS,EM/CT-ASC
