The court ruled that once a boundary dispute is resolved, the aggrieved party must pursue compensation through a formal lawsuit.

The petitioner asserting ownership of 1 acre 8 guntas in Sy. No.90 of Chandapura Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District [the subject property] has filed this petition alleging that the third respondent's officials have illegally removed the fencing constructed by him along the northern portion of his property; that they have encroached a certain portion of his property and that he is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the third respondent towards illegal encroachment and felling of standing trees such as sandalwood trees and medicinal trees. The dispute put forth for consideration is obviously a boundary dispute.

2. This Court, on 07.02.2024, after recording the nature of dispute, has directed a joint survey on 21.02.2024. This Court has also observed that all the procedural formalities for survey shall be duly observed and that the survey shall be supervised by the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records.

It is undisputed that such survey is conducted, and after this survey, a report is filed by the third respondent along with the mahazar drawn. This report and Mahazar are taken on record.

3. When queried, Sri. M K Shivaraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is categorical that as is indicated in the report the boundary of his land in Sy. No.90 is now demarcated and that the boundary stones have also been fixed. It is obvious from this statement that the dispute over the boundary of the petitioner's land is now resolved, and as such, the petition in this regard would not survive for consideration. However, Sri M K Shivaraju submits that this Court must take note of the fact that undisputedly the third respondent's officials have employed huge machineries to break the fencing constructed by the petitioner and grant just compensation towards loss of standing trees.

4. The petitioner's request in this regard is examined in the light of the undisputed fact that there is cart road between the petitioner's land and the adjacent land in Sy. No.13 of Igluru Village, and though this Court could comment on the manner in which the third respondent has exercised his jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, if keen on

5. receiving recompense, must necessarily work out his remedies for compensation in an appropriately instituted suit.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.