Petitioner must pursue claims in ongoing civil suit as the writ petition is not maintainable due to disputed land titles.

ORAL ORDER

In the captioned petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 07.06.2017 passed by 1^st respondent vide Annexure-A.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. The subject matter of captioned petition is in regard to the property bearing Katha No.151500402600800140 corresponding old No.135/73/73.

4. The petitioner, an educational institution, asserts that it has been running a Kannada Medium High School since the year 1963 on the land bearing Survey No.23. The petitioner claims to have derived its rights over the said land pursuant to a grant made by the Government in the year 1991. The grievance in the present writ petition arises from the action of respondent No.2 – the Panchayath Development Officer who has issued a khatha bearing No.151500402600800140 (corresponding to old No.135/73/73) in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner contends that the issuance of the said khatha has resulted in serious prejudice to its rights and possession over the land claimed in Survey No.23.

5. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the khatha, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 – the designated Appellate Authority under the relevant statute. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the said appeal came to be dismissed by respondent No.1 in complete disregard of the directions issued by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.62070/2016 (Annexure-M). It is contended that the dismissal of the appeal is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, as the Appellate Authority failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or properly consider the materials on record.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has produced the title documents and contended that the khatha in question pertains not to Survey No.23, but to Survey No.28, over which respondent No.3 claims to have acquired valid title. It is argued that since the petitioner's claim is exclusively over Survey No.23, the petitioner lacks locus standi to challenge the khatha issued in respect of a different survey number. Respondent No.3 further asserts that the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the khatha is legally tenable and based on valid title held by her in Survey No.28.

7. Upon closer scrutiny of the records, particularly the objections filed by respondent No.3, it is revealed that respondent No.3 has already instituted a comprehensive civil suit in O.S.No.31/2018 on the file of the jurisdictional Civil Court, seeking a declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner has been impleaded as a defendant in the said suit and has filed a written statement, actively contesting the same. Thus, the issue of title and possession over the subject property is sub judice in the said civil proceedings.

8. In light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that even though respondent No.1 – the Appellate Authority appears to have disposed of the petitioner’s appeal without affording due opportunity of hearing, the existence of a comprehensive suit involving the same parties and concerning the title dispute constrains this Court from granting any relief in the present writ petition. The rival claims over title and possession can be more appropriately and effectively adjudicated in the pending civil suit, where the parties have the liberty to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions.

9. On a detailed examination of the materials on record, this Court has also observed that the petitioner and respondent No.3 appear to be staking claims over distinct parcels of land. While the petitioner is asserting its right