Karnataka High Court
Ashok S/O. Sadashiv Rane vs The Secretary on 10 June, 2022
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
RSA No. 100416 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100416 OF 2015 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. ASHOK S/O. SADASHIV RANE
AGE: 62 YEARS,
R/O. CHINCHEWAD, CHITTAKULA VILLAGE,
SADASHIVAGAD, KARWAR
2. SURESH S/O. SADASHIV RANE
AGE: 72 YEARS,
R/O. CHINCHEWAD, CHITTAKULA VILLAGE,
SADASHIVAGAD, KARWAR
3. RAVINDRA S/O. SADASHIV RANE
AGE: 60 YEARS,
R/O. CHINCHEWAD, CHITTAKULA VILLAGE,
SADASHIVAGAD, KARWAR
4. SUHAS S/O. SADASHIV RANE
AGE: 52 YEARS,
R/O. CHINCHEWAD, CHITTAKULA VILLAGE,
SADASHIVAGAD, KARWAR
APPELLANT NO.2 IS REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT
NO.1 AS GPA HOLDER
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C V ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
RSA No. 100416 of 2015
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
GRAM PANCHAYAT
CHITTAKULA VILLAGE
SADASHIVAGAD , KARWAR
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S V YAJI, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2015
PASSED IN R.A.NO.10/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, KARWAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL,
AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
02.07.2013 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.12/2005 ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) KARWAR,
DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
RSA No. 100416 of 2015
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants against
the judgment and order dated 23.01.2015 passed in
R.A.No.10/2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Karwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate Court'), in and
by which while allowing appeal in part, the judgment and decree
dated 02.07.2013 passed in O.S.No.12/2005 on the file of the Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.), Karwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court')
was modified and the defendant and its representatives were
permanently restrained from putting up any construction of road in
the suit land bearing Sy.No.952/01 of Chittakula village.
2. It is the case of the appellants that even while granting
prohibitory relief of permanent injunction, both the Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court had not granted consequential relief
directing the respondent to remove mud which was filled on the suit
property by the respondent. It is this short issue which is raised in
this present appeal.
3. This Court by order dated 03.02.2017 taking note of
the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties had
RSA No. 100416 of 2015
directed the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat within
whose jurisdiction the respondent's Gram Panchayat is situated, to
take appropriate action to remove mud and initiate action against
Viresh Naikar, for recovery of the cost incurred for removing mud
from the land of the appellants. It was further directed to the
Secretary to ensure removal of mud within two weeks from the date
of the said order.
4. The matter was listed on 27.05.2022. Sri.S.V.Yaji,
learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the aforesaid
order dated 03.02.2017 passed by this Court had been complied
within two days from the date of the said order. He had further
submitted that an affidavit in that regard would be filed.
Sri.C.V.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants had
also submitted that he would also verify from the appellants if the
order of this Court dated 03.02.2017 has been complied with.
5. The matter is listed today for reporting the status of
compliance.
6. In furtherance to the above, Sri.S.V.Yaji, learned
counsel for the respondent files an affidavit of Sri.Rajesh Subraya
RSA No. 100416 of 2015
Naik - Panchayat Development Officer - the deponent to the
Affidavit who is also personally present and the same is taken on
record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants who is present
through video conference as per the instructions of the appellants
submits that the mud found on the suit property has been removed.
He also submits that a copy of the affidavit of compliance has been
served on him by the counsel for the respondent today at 12.00
p.m.
8. In view of the above and on the submission made by
the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to compliance of
the order dated 03.02.2017, nothing remains for consideration in
this appeal. Taking the said submission on record, the appeal is
disposed of as having become infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGK
