Shankaragouda Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

- section 168; [ram mohan reddy, j] award of compensation under the head loss of dependency - legal representatives of the claimant were not dependent on the income of the deceased-finding of the tribunal awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency legality of- held, if the claimants were not dependent on the income of the deceased, compensation under the head loss of dependency cannot be granted. at best in such circumstances, a nominal sum as compensation towards loss to estate can be granted by applying an appropriate multiplier. further, where the claimants who are dependents of the deceased, claim loss of dependency and where the claimants who are not the dependents of the deceased claim only loss to estate. on facts, held, the claimants were not the dependents on the income of the deceased. therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation for loss to estate.order1. petitioner claims to be owner of survey no. 247 (a+b+e+f) of munavalli village of saundatti taluk. district belgaum. he has alleged that the second respondent-mandal panchayat is contemplating construction of a building on a portion of his land. petitioner further alleges that mandal panchayat cannot do such thing and therefore must be restrained from doing so. entire activity of the mandal panchayat is motivated by mala fides. mandal panchayat is even trying to alter number of the property. in that circumstance, it is just and proper that this court under art. 226 of the constitution should issue a mandamus or a direction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from building upon the land owned by him.2. ordinarily this court exercising jurisdiction under art. 226, will not interfere in matters which involve investigation of title. if petitioner is the owner and third parties are trying to encroach upon his land, only remedy available to him is to move the civil court having jurisdiction for injunction under o.39, rules 1 and 2 restraining such unauthorised persons from entering upon his land and doing any activity prejudices his title.3. subject to the above observation, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable.4. order accordingly.