T C RAJANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been considered together and are taken up for final disposal at this stage itself, by way of this common order.

(2.) Petitioners have challenged the endorsement dated 31.05.2017 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-division, Bengaluru [respondent No.4], inter alia seeking a direction to the Tahasildar [respondent No.5], Bengaluru North Additional Taluk to fix the phodi prepared in respect of the lands in question.

(3.) This litigation has a chequered history. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.42355-356/2017 are claiming to be the absolute owners of the lands bearing Sy.No.87/P11 measuring to an extent of 3 acres whereas the petitioner in W.P.No.42357/2017 is claiming to be the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.87/P9 measuring to an extent of 4 acres, both situated at Tharahunase Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The petitioners had made representation to the Tahasildar to conduct the survey and phodi work in the aforesaid lands and paid fees towards phodi work. Thereafter, it appears that Special Tahasildar, Bengaluru North Additional Taluk, Yelahanka, Bengaluru had forwarded the file to the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-division, Bengaluru [respondent No.4] for necessary action. Aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities in not conducting the phodi, the petitioners and others have filed W.P.Nos.59877-59878/2014 before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus and a direction to the Deputy Director of Land Records, Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner to conduct phodi durasti by considering the representation of the petitioners. This Honourable Court was pleased to direct the official respondents therein [the Deputy Director of Land Records, Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner] to complete the phodi operations within an outer limit of six months from the date of the order. Further, contempt petitions were filed by the petitioners alleging the breach and disobedience of the said order passed by this Court and the same came to be disposed of with an observation that the subordinate officers have prepared the sketch and boundaries of the petitioners' lands, the same was not approved by the competent authority by issuing an endorsement dated 31.05.2017. Further, it was observed that if the complainants therein are aggrieved by the endorsement dated 31.05.2017 of the Assistant Commissioner, they may resort to appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Forum and accordingly the contempt proceedings were dropped. Hence, these writ petitions are filed by the petitioners challenging the endorsement dated 31.05.2017 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, primarily on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue an endorsement, annulling the phodi durasti conducted by the Tahasildar.