Karnataka High Court
Shri. Krishnagouda Venkaangouda ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2021
Author: Ashok S. Kinagi
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
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
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
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
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
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
