Shri. Srinivas Represented by His General Power of attorney Holder Shri. Srirangarajan vs Government of Karnataka and Others

B.S. Patil, J.—Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 3. In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus against respondents 2 to 7 to consider the representations submitted by him vide Annexures L to R. By these representations, the petitioner has brought to the notice of the authorities concerned the fact that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of one acre of land comprised in Sy.No.20/5 situated at Roopena Agrahara. Begur Hobli. Bangalore South Taluk and that the Revenue Authorities had found that the petitioner was entitled for his name to be recorded in the khatha in respect of the said land. The petitioner has placed reliance on the order passed by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk dated 05.05.2007 and the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District disposing of the revision petition filed by respondents 9 to 11 herein challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar.

Based on the orders of the Revenue Authorities, petitioner has contended that as he has been held to be a person entitled for getting his name entered in the khatha in respect of the land in question, all transactions that had taken place at the instance of respondents 9 to 11 such as conversion, power supply obtained from BESCOM for supply of power, clearance from Urban Development Authority and the Deputy Director General of Civil Aviation, Fire and Emergency Services and the Pollution Control Board were illegal and deserved to be cancelled. Accordingly the petitioner has made these representations Annexure L to R to various Authorities. Alleging that all these representations are not considered by the Authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate direction.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner is ordered to be recorded as Khatedar in respect of the land in question and as respondents 9 to 11 unsuccessfully challenged the orders passed by the Authorities concerned before this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 854 to 857 of 2009, the Authorities are duty bound to cancel the order of conversion granted in favour of the contesting respondents and also revoke the power supply granted and other clearance given to the contesting respondents to carry on business in the land in question.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusal of the order passed by this Court which is produced at Annexure-H it is seen that this Court while declining to interfere with the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities has observed at para 7 that it was not for this Court to pronounce upon the merits of the claims but suffice to observe that it was open to the aggrieved person to approach civil court and seek suitable declaration regarding the right, title and interest in respect of the subject land and work out their remedy elsewhere in accordance with law.

Pursuant to this order the contesting respondents have filed O.S.No.4620/2011 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore seeking the relief of declaration against the petitioner. In fact this fact is asserted by the petitioner himself in para 15 of the writ petition. It is also stated in the writ petition that the respondents have obtained an interim order against the petitioner restraining the petitioner from alienating the property.

If the petitioner intends to secure any other relief it is open to him to move the Civil Court by filing necessary application in accordance with law. This Court, at this stage, cannot issue any direction to the respondents to cancel the order of conversion granted.

When a provision is made in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for the aggrieved person to challenge the order granting conversion as is evident from Section 49(C) of the Act this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus against the authorities concerned be it the Special Deputy Commissioner or any other higher Authority to cancel the order of conversion as the order of conversion is made by exercising the statutory power vested in the competent authority and as per the provisions of the said Act petitioner has to avail the alternative remedy and challenge the said order before the Competent Authority.

Reserving such liberty to the petitioner to seek necessary orders in the Civil Court or to approach the Competent Authority by filing necessary appeal the writ petition is dismissed. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.