Sub:Dispute arises over the approval of a sanctioned plan for government-granted land without actual possession, utilizing a Saguvali Chit(Karnataka)
We own a parcel of land located adjacent to a PWD road, with a distance of only 20 meters from the road. Recently, our neighbors were granted additional land beside ours, resulting in a configuration resembling an 'L' shape. They claim to possess a sanctioned sketch that covers approximately 80% of the frontage of our land, close to the PWD road, impeding our view of the thoroughfare. Our family has resided on this land for over a century and have maintained continuous possession. We possess official documentation affirming our ownership rights just beside this land. However, our neighbors are now attempting to proceed with construction, citing they possess regulatory approvals and sanctioned sketches.
Questions:
1) What steps can we take to dispute the part of sanctioned sketch allegedly granted by the government, as there is no record of them possessing this land?
2) How can we establish the accountability of the surveyor or revenue inspector responsible for creating the sketch, and what legal recourse do we have against these government officials? Additionally, are there any precedents in the Karnataka High Court or other subordinate courts that address similar cases?
3) Some individuals have suggested that we lack the right to dispute the saction sketch since the land is government property and we have simply been in possession of it for an extended period. How do we address this assertion?
Note 1:
1) I contend that this case could become sensational due to the inadequacies in Karnataka's land grant regulations, particularly concerning the establishment of robust accountability measures for surveyors or revenue inspectors who illicitly grant additional government land under false pretenses of possession.
2) What is the fairness of granting land in such close proximity to urban areas and adjacent to PWD roads?
3) Is it equitable to convert such land into commercial use?
4) Furthermore, what are the potential implications in fostering criminal conspiracy among land grabbers?
Note 2:
I am not assigning direct blame here; rather, I am expressing my perspective on the current law.
