IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.64555 OF 2011 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. KRISHNAGOUDA VENKANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O:KULGOD, TALUK: GOKAK,
DIST: BELGAUM.
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYAT GOKAK
GOKAK.
3. THE SECRETARY,
GRAM PANCHAYAT,
KULGOD, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST:BELGAUM .
4. KRISHNARADDI GOVINDAPPA CHANNAL
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC:: AGRICULTURE,
R/O:AGRICULTURE, R/O: KULGOD,
TALUK: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.
....RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. SHRIHARSH NEELOPANTH, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3
SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADV. FOR R4
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT
OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY
EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT GOKAK IN T.P. APPEAL
NO.15/2008-09 DATED 16.01.2011 WHICH IS PRODUCED
UNDER ANNEXURE AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2011 passed by Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Gokak in Appeal No.15/2008-09 filed this writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is absolute owner of property bearing GPC No.241 of Kulgod village.
3. It is stated that originally the said property owned by the father of the petitioner by name Basanagouda Ramanagouda Patil. After his demise, the petitioner has inherited the property by way of succession. During the lifetime of original owner i.e., the father of the 3 petitioner has submitted a Varadi to Gram Panchayat, Kulgod to mutate the name of the petitioner. The Gram Panchayat, Kulgod passed resolution dated 04.12.1995, it was resolve to mutate the name of the petitioner in respect of aforesaid property.
4. In the said records, the name of the first respondent and his brothers' name were appeared in the possession column of the property illegally without there being any right title and interest over the property. The fourth respondent and his brothers were never in actual possession of the said property. Taking undue advantage of the their names in the property extract, fourth respondent and his brothers were trying to construct the building over the property. The petitioner filed suit in O.S. No.294/2004 against respondent No.1 and his brothers.
5. In the said suit, the fourth respondent and his brothers appeared and filed written statement. In the said written statement, the fourth respondent have admitted the ownership of the petitioner and contended that they 4 have become owner of the suit property by way of an adverse possession.
6. During the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.294/2004, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal bearing No.15/2008-09 against the resolution passed by the respondent No.3 dated 04.12.1995. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.4. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority, has filed this writ petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of petitioner was the owner of the suit property. After his demise, the name of petitioner was entered in Panchayat record by resolution dated 04.12.1995. in the Panchayat record, in possession column, the name of respondent No.4 and his brothers 5 were shown as they are in possession of the property. Taking undue advantage of the entries in the Panchayat record, respondent No.4 and his brothers are trying to construct a building over the suit schedule property. The petitioner aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4, filed suit in O.S.No.294/2004 against the respondent No.4 and his brothers. Respondent No.4 has no right or title over the suit schedule property. Hence the Appellate Authority has committed an error in entertaining the appeal filed by the respondent No.4. Hence he submits that the Appellate Authority was not justified in allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.4. Hence he prays to allow the writ petition.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent submits that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.294/2004 against respondent No.4 and his brothers and the said suit came to be dismissed holding that respondent No.4 and his brothers are in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, he submits that the 6 Appellate Authority was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No.4. Hence he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
10. Learned HCGP supports the impugned order.
11. Perused the records and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
12. It is not in dispute that the name of respondent No.4 and his brothers are appearing in Panchayat record in possession column. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.294/2004 against respondent No.4 and his brothers. The said suit came to be dismissed and the said fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.294/2004 preferred R.A.No.41/2017 which is pending. In view of the matter pending before the civil 7 Court, the revenue authorities cannot decide the rights of the parties. It is only the civil Court which has got the jurisdiction to decide the right of the parties. The matter is already seized by the civil Court. Any entry made in the name of respondent No.4 and his brothers is subject to the outcome of R.A.No.41/2017. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MNS/RD