Smt. Sarojabai V. vs The Taluk Surveyor and Sri. A. Krishnappa

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ petitioner claims to be owner of property bearing No. 26/2 measuring 20 guntas situated at Abbigere village, Yelahanka hobli, Bangalore north taluk. It is averred in the writ petition that the second respondent A Krishnappa is the owner of adjoining land bearing Sy. No. 26/5 of the same village. It is pleaded that both petitioner and the second respondent had sought for surveying of respective lands and for fixation of boundaries. It is also the version of the petitioner that the surveyors had surveyed the lands of the petitioner and the second respondent and found that there was no encroachment whatsoever in the lands in the ownership of the petitioner and the second respondent. It is the version of the petitioner that the second respondent, in turn, filed repeated applications for survey and resurvey of the land and as per the surveyors'' reports dated 18-7-1998, 20-11-1998 and 7-6-1999 had mentioned that there was no encroachment of whatsoever nature in either land, but it appears that when survey was conducted on 3-1-1999, it was alleged that the petitioner had encroached about 13/4 guntas of land in Sy. No 26/5. In this background, second respondent, it appears, had filed OS No. 3653 of 2002 on the file of city civil and sessions judge, Bangalore, impleading the petitioner as first defendant and seeking for a declaration and possession. The said suit came to be decreed in part, decreeing that the plaintiff therein was the owner of 1 acre 9 guntas of land in Sy. No. 26/5, but the prayer for possession of the encroached portion and for mandatory injunction was rejected.

It appears, second respondent made another application to the survey authority to survey the land in Sy. No. 26/5 by filing an application in the year 2010 and on the said application, it appears, the first respondent taluka surveyor issued notice to the petitioner proposing to survey the land. Though objection had been filed by the petitioner to the said notice stating that no survey can be conducted on the basis of the judgment and decree of the civil court. First respondent had again issued another notice dated 22-11-2010, proposing to hold a survey on 30-11-2010 and it is under these circumstances, the present writ petition is filed seeking for quashing of the said notice.

Notice had been issued to the respondents and the proposed inspection and survey of the land had been stayed by this court. Respondents entered appearance. First respondent is represented by Ms. MC Nagashree, learned government. pleader and the second respondent is represented by Sri Gopal Sing, Advocate.

Second respondent has also filed statement of objections. Issue of notice is defended by the second respondent, as it is the normal procedure on an application filed by this respondent following the judgment and decree obtained by him and the action is justified and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Learned government pleader submits that notice had been issued to the petitioner being a neighbour landowner on the application made by the second respondent and that it is a normal procedure, more so in the wake of the declaration given by the civil court.

Impugned notice being only to survey the land and fix boundaries following the declaration given by the civil court on the application filed by the second respondent, it is necessary that survey authorities should strictly conform to the decree of the civil court recognizing the second respondent to be the owner of an extent of 1 acre 9 guntas in Sy. No. 26/5 and not any more extent. Learned government pleader submits that the authorities will abide by the judgment and decree of the civil court. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.