S.V. Venkataiah S/O Late Venkataiah, Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary, Department of Revenue and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- karnataka municipal corporations act, 1976 sections 174 to 178: [p.d.dinakaran, cj & v.g.sabhahit,j] objection as to erection and unveiling of poet-saint-thiruvallavur near ulsoor lake held, the decisions to erect and unveil the statues of great divine poet thiruvallavur near ulsoor lake, bangalore and great poet sarvajna at chennai have been taken at the highest level between both the governments, viz., government of karnataka and government of tamil nadu, of course, with the due approval of the respective corporations, viz., corporation of bangalore and corporation of chennai, particularly, in view of the due approval of the corporation of bangalore for erecting and unveiling of statue of great divine poet thiruvallavur near ulsoor lake, bangalore, and that, functions are also being organised by both the government of karnataka and the government of tamil nadu jointly for erecting statue of great divine poet thiruvallavur near ulsoor lake, bangalore on 9th august, 2009 and statute of great poet sarvajna at chennai on 13th august, 2009, there is no irregularity or illegality in the same.undoubtedly, both the great poets have contributed much to the society to uphold the morality and above all, human dignity, cutting across caste, creed, language, religion and whatsoever. that apart, the proposal of erecting and unveiling of statues of great poets thiruvallavur and sarvajna at bangalore and chennai, respectively, would, as satisfied by both the corporations, enhance the brotherhood of neighbouring states. in the absence of any violation of rules or provision of law, much less irregularity or illegality, there is no, reason to entertain the above writ petition. hence, the writ petition fails and therefore, dismissed.if any third party resort to any agitation or bandh or whatsoever, the state shall have free-hand to deal with the matter strictly in accordance with law. ordera.s. bopanna, j.1. the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to incorporate the survey numbers and fix the boundary marks by means of stone in respect of the lands in sy. nos. 255 and 257 of kodavatti village, kunigal taluk, tumkur district2. the case of the petitioner is that the extent of land as indicated in the petition has been granted to the petitioner and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the same. however, the boundaries in respect of the said property has not been fixed as per the claim as made in the petition despite the request made by the petitioners. in this regard, the petitioners have placed reliance on the annexures which have been produced along with the writ petition. the document at annexure g would indicate that the petitioner had made a detailed representation indicating his right in respect of the properties situate in sy. nos. 255 and 257. the said representation was addressed to the third and fourth respondents. the petitioner has also placed reliance on the sketch to indicate the nature of right. the grievance however is that neither the respondents have responded to the said representation nor have they carried out the request as made by the petition. the learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the said documents would contend that since the respondents have failed to act in accordance with law, the petitioner has been forced to approach this court seeking for the prayer made in the petition.3. the learned government advocate, on instructions, would state that the petitioner cannot claim right to the extent as indicated in the petition. it is further contended that the right of the petitioner is limited only to the extent of the land granted to him and therefore, if at all any demarcation of the boundary is to be made, it could be made in that regard.4. insofar as the extent of the land based on the records available and the physical availability of the land is a matter to be considered by the authorities viz., the second and third respondent while carrying out the fixation of boundaries. therefore, in so far as the rival contentions with regard to the extent of the land, the same need not be adverted to since the only relief sought in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to incorporate the survey numbers in accordance with law and to fix the boundary marks on the land in sy. nos. 255 and 257 to which the petitioner is laying claim.5. in this regard, all that is to be noticed is that the petitioner had filed a representation as an annexure g making out his right to the said property and claiming for fixation of the boundaries. there is nothing on record to indicate that the said representation has been disposed of one way on the other. in any event, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has right to the property in sy. nos. 255 and 257, though the extent is to be surveyed and as such an appropriate fixation of boundary would have to be made. therefore, respondents 3 and 4 are directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 30.5.2009 by fixing the boundaries to the land of the petitioner after verifying the documents relied on by the petitioner in comparison with the documents available with the respondents. while fixing the boundaries of the land belonging to the petitioner, the respondents are also at liberty to issue notice to any other person, if such notice is required to be issued in law. in order to hasten the process, the petitioner is also granted liberty to file a fresh representation along with the documents before respondent nos. 3 and 4 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. on receipt of such notice, the respondents 3 and 4 shall initiate action forthwith and complete the entire process within a period of four months thereafter.in terms of the above the petition stands disposed of. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

A.S. Bopanna, J.

1. The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to incorporate the survey numbers and fix the boundary marks by means of stone in respect of the lands in Sy. Nos. 255 and 257 of Kodavatti village, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District

2. The case of the petitioner is that the extent of land as indicated in the petition has been granted to the petitioner and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, the boundaries in respect of the said property has not been fixed as per the claim as made in the petition despite the request made by the petitioners. In this regard, the petitioners have placed reliance on the Annexures which have been produced along with the Writ Petition. The document at Annexure G would indicate that the petitioner had made a detailed representation indicating his right in respect of the properties situate in Sy. Nos. 255 and 257. The said representation was addressed to the third and fourth respondents. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the sketch to indicate the nature of right. The grievance however is that neither the respondents have responded to the said representation nor have they carried out the request as made by the petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the said documents would contend that since the respondents have failed to act in accordance with law, the petitioner has been forced to approach this Court seeking for the prayer made in the petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, would state that the petitioner cannot claim right to the extent as indicated in the petition. It is further contended that the right of the petitioner is limited only to the extent of the land granted to him and therefore, if at all any demarcation of the boundary is to be made, it could be made in that regard.

4. Insofar as the extent of the land based on the records available and the physical availability of the land is a matter to be considered by the authorities viz., the second and third respondent while carrying out the fixation of boundaries. Therefore, in so far as the rival contentions with regard to the extent of the land, the same need not be adverted to since the only relief sought in the Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to incorporate the survey numbers in accordance with law and to fix the boundary marks on the land in Sy. Nos. 255 and 257 to which the petitioner is laying claim.

5. In this regard, all that is to be noticed is that the petitioner had filed a representation as an Annexure G making out his right to the said property and claiming for fixation of the boundaries. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said representation has been disposed of one way on the other. In any event, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has right to the property in Sy. Nos. 255 and 257, though the extent is to be surveyed and as such an appropriate fixation of boundary would have to be made. Therefore, respondents 3 and 4 are directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 30.5.2009 by fixing the boundaries to the land of the petitioner after verifying the documents relied on by the petitioner in comparison with the documents available with the respondents. While fixing the boundaries of the land belonging to the petitioner, the respondents are also at liberty to issue notice to any other person, if such notice is required to be issued in law. In order to hasten the process, the petitioner is also granted liberty to file a fresh representation along with the documents before respondent Nos. 3 and 4 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On receipt of such notice, the respondents 3 and 4 shall initiate action forthwith and complete the entire process within a period of four months thereafter.

In terms of the above the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.