Sri. Krishna Maniyani vs Honnappa Gowda
2022 Latest Caselaw 3521 Kant

                             1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

             R.S.A. NO.2348 OF 2012 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI. KRISHNA MANIYANI
S/O KUNHIRAMA MANIYANI,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
BAYAMBADI HOUSE,
R/AT KOLTHIGE VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574201.
                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE - PH)

AND:

1.     HONNAPPA GOWDA
       S/O NAGAPPA GOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 56 EYARS,
       BAYAMBADI HOUSE,
       R/AT KOLTHIGE VILLAGE,
       PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574201.

2.     SRI HARISH GOWDA
       S/O KRISHNAPPA GOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
       CIVIL CONTRACTOR,            Deleted and amended
       R/O KUDKULI HOUSE,           with permission of
       PERLAMBADY POST,             Hon'ble Court on
       KOLTHIGE VILLAGE,            4.4.2016
       PUTTUR TALUK,
       D.K.-574201.
                                              ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.J.ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT
NO.1;
                                  2




VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 04.04.2016 RESPONDENT NO.2 IS
DELETED)

      THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 17.08.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.29/2009 ON
THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
PUTTUR, D.K., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2009 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.75/2001 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.), PUTTUR, D.K.

     THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree

of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Puttur, D.K.,

(henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in O.S.No.75/2001

as well as the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Puttur (henceforth referred to as 'First Appellate Court') in

R.A.No.29/2009, by which the suit filed for perpetual

injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing

over the 'A' schedule property and for mandatory

injunction to demolish whatever construction put up

thereon during the pendency of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the land bearing

Sy.No.45/3 of Kolthige village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina

Kannada District is the land belonging to Government and

lay adjacent to his warga land bearing Sy. No.301/2C and

Sy.No.44/9B. The plaintiff claimed that he had filed an

application for regularisation of his unauthorised cultivation

of the said land on 13.07.1999 and that the concerned

authorities were enquiring into the same. The defendant

No.1 being the neighbour of the plaintiff was making

attempts to encroach into the said property and was

attempting to put up construction. He claimed that the

Tahsildar in terms of his order dated 12.01.1990 had

restrained the defendant No.1 from putting up any

construction over the said property and that in violation of

the said order, the defendant No.1 had attempted to

encroach upon the 'A' schedule property which prompted

the Tahsildar to issue another direction dated 28.08.1998

not to encroach over the said property. The plaintiff

claimed that he and defendant No.1 were rival claimants

claiming regularisation of their unauthorised cultivation of

the aforesaid land. Since the defendant No.1 tried to put

up construction over the land, the plaintiff was forced to

file a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant

No.1 from putting up any construction, pending disposal of

the application filed by plaintiff for regularisation of his

unauthorised cultivation. The Trial Court, after considering

the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit in

terms of the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2009. A

Regular Appeal filed by the plaintiff before the First

Appellate Court also met the same fate. Being aggrieved

by the above, the present appeal is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff

submitted that since the plaintiff has a statutory civil right

over the property in question, the defendant No.1 cannot

be permitted to usurp the property and thereby destroy

the rights of the plaintiff over the property in question.

4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant

did not dispute that both the plaintiff and defendant No.1

are claiming regularisation of their portions of the land

which they are unauthorisedly cultivating. It is the case of

the plaintiff that those applications are still pending

consideration before the concerned Committee.

5. In that view of the matter and in view of the

fact that a suit under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'KLR Act') is

not maintainable as the applications are to be determined

by the Revenue Authorities, both the Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court were absolutely justified in not

entertaining the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the land in

question.

6. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in

this appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed.

7. If the applications are pending consideration

before the Committee for regularisation of unauthorised

cultivation, the parties are at liberty to pursue their right

before the concerned Committee.

Sd/-

JUDGE

hnm