- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4817 WP No. 6384 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6384 OF 2020 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI DEVEGOUDA S/O LATE HONNAGIRI GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MAHADESHWARAPURA VILLAGE, MELUKOTE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COURT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401. 2. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANTS TO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER REVENUE, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 434. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4817 WP No. 6384 of 2020 4. THE THASILDAR PANDAVAPURA TALUK - 571 434, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 434. 5. M VISHWANATH S/O MUDDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEAS, MAHADESHWARAPURA VILLAGE, MELLUKOTTE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. BHANU PRASAD K, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-1 DATED 12.11.2019 IN REVISION NO.10/2018 MARKED AS ANNX-L AND THE ORDER R-2 DATED 16.12.2017 IN NO.109/2017-18 MARKED AT ANNX-K AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4817 WP No. 6384 of 2020 ORAL ORDER The petitioner in the caption petition has assailed an order dated 16.12.2017 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-K and the order dated 12.11.2019 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-L. 2. Heard Sri. A. Nagarajappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and Sri. Bhanu Prasad K., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 3. Facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner is asserting title to an extent of 2 acres 5 guntas. Petitioner asserts that the erstwhile owner sold 2 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.5/2 totally measuring 3 acre 11 guntas vide registered sale deed dated 05.08.1968. Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3, on the premises conducted the tatkal phodi, which is evidenced at Annexure - J. The petitioner in the caption petition is laying a claim beyond the east - west road towards northern side. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4817 WP No. 6384 of 2020 4. Upon a thorough examination of the records, it is evident that the petitioner owns 2 acres 5 guntas, while respondent No.5 holds 1 acre 3 guntas. Based on the petitioner's request, the authorities conducted a tatkal phodi, as evidenced in Annexure-J. Following this process, the petitioner's land was reassigned a new survey number, Sy.No.5/8, while respondent No.5's land retained its original designation as Sy.No.5/2. A crucial aspect of the phodi proceedings is the presence of an east-west road that separates the two properties. The petitioner's land, now designated as Sy.No.5/8, is situated to the south of this road, whereas respondent No.5's land remains on the northern side. The details reflected in the phodi proceedings, including the respective land extents - 2 acres 5 guntas for the petitioner and 1 acre 3 guntas for respondent No.5 align with the reassignment. Additionally, the RTC documents submitted by respondent No.5, marked as Annexure-R11, indicate that while the petitioner's land in Sy.No.5/8 measures 2 acres 8 guntas, 7 guntas thereof is classified as kharab. These records confirm that the phodi proceedings were duly conducted, and the new - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4817 WP No. 6384 of 2020 survey numbers and extents are consistent with the reassigned property details. 5. Despite these clear demarcations, the petitioner is attempting to claim land beyond the northern boundary of the road, as indicated in Annexure-A. Such a claim suggests an encroachment into Sy.No.5/2, which belongs to respondent No.5. Following the phodi, fresh RTCs were issued to both parties, accurately reflecting their respective land holdings and the separation by the east-west road. The issuance of these updated RTCs further strengthens the division established by the phodi proceedings. 6. The petitioner’s counsel has argued against the reasoning adopted by the authorities, but this Court does not find merit in those contentions. The petitioner's apprehension that respondent No.5 is disputing his title over 2 acres in Sy.No.5/8 is misconceived. Although the private respondents have contended that the petitioner possesses only 1 acre 28 guntas, this argument does not hold significance. Since the phodi proceedings have been completed and the petitioner's land has been reassigned a new survey number (Sy.No.5/8) - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4817 WP No. 6384 of 2020 reflecting an extent of 2 acres, the petitioner's rightful ownership remains intact. Unless there is concrete evidence proving that the respondents have encroached upon the southern portion of Sy.No.5/8, this Court finds no grounds to intervene. 7. If the petitioner believes that an encroachment has occurred, the appropriate legal recourse is to approach the Civil Court, present evidence, and seek necessary relief in accordance with the law. However, at this stage, there is no justification for this Court to interfere with the concluded phodi proceedings, which have been acted upon by issuing separate RTCs for Sy.No.5/8 (petitioner's property) and Sy.No.5/2 (respondent No.5’s property). Consequently, as the writ petition lacks merit, it stands dismissed. JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT: BHK SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE