AIR 2011 KARNATAKA 156 ::2011 (2) AIR Kant HCR 428 ::2011 (2) AIR Kar R 428 ::(2011) 2 KCCR 916 ::(2011) 3 Kant LJ 363

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): D. V. Shylendra Kumar , J

Constitution of India , Art.226— Frivolous writ petition - Misuse of writ jurisdiction - Petition against revenue authorities claiming ownership, title over disputed land allegedly by tinkering revenue records - Disputes can be examined only in civil suits and not in exercise of writ jurisdiction - Judicial time being wasted by such petitions - Petition dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-. Every person asserting ownership rights having property disputes with either neighbours or other third parties jump into Court invoking writ jurisdiction only by ensuring that revenue records are tinkered by revenue authorities exercising power under Section 136 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 any other power under Act and using that as a cause which is more in nature of a pretext to invoke writ jurisdiction of Court.(Para 6) It is not function of Court u/Art. 226 to keep reviewing orders passed by revenue authorities to show name of one person or other in revenue records as revenue entries are only reflection of ownership rights otherwise persons have. By a mere tinkering of revenue entries, neither ownership rights are lost nor gained. Inspite of repeated orders passed by Court observing such legal position, it has become a habit for persons without bona fides, who may or may not have any legal right, property right to jump int....