AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikramajit Sen, Ag C.J.
We have heard the matter in great detail. It is evident that there is no dispute as to the title of the petitioner over the land measuring 1 12 acres. Counsel for the petitioner states that the land measures 112.26 acres but this is in dispute.
On behalf of Sri.RG.Kolle learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the entire ownership of the petitioner is questionable in view of Section 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. This plea appears to have not been raised in the civil suit, pending in the Civil Court.. Hungund Tahuk. Respondent. No. 3 contends that the total area of the land in Sy.No. 296/1B/1 is 117.26 acres. The respondent is entitled to quarry in 5 acres from this survey number. Respondent No. 4 namely. Sri.N.K.Shashidhar, claims interest in 4 acres in Sy.No. 296/1B/2. A civil suit had been filed pertaining to this claim, which was dismissed because the land on which the claim of respondent No. 4 is based could not be identified. It is therefore manifestly clear that there is a dispute pertaining to 5 acres out of Sy.No. 298/B/1 out of the total 117.26 acres. It is also not known that where the 5 acres of land claimed by respondent No. 3 is located.
Counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to the letter dated 15.C6.2006 permitting the appellant to quarry in Sy.No. 196/B/1 situated in Baiakundhi village in Ilakal Hobli, Hungunda Taluk, Bagalkot District, in which status-quo was ordered in respect of the remaining 5 acres from this survey number. According to the petitioner the order dated 12.10.2006 is in violation of the interim order passed in the Civil Suit tiled by the petitioner.
In a writ proceedings we cannot go into the contested question of fact, especially of the complicated nature spelt out above. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the dismissal of the Writ Petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner contending before the Civil Court that the order of the Presiding Officer. Mines and Geology, dated 12.10.2006 is virtually in contempt of the orders of the Civil Court. That question may be adjudicated before the Civil Court. Obviously no observations arc made in respect of respondent: No. 4''s claim over four acres of land in Sy.No. 296/1B/2.