Karnataka High Court
Madivalappa S/O. Shivarayappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2023
Bench: Sachin Shankar Byssmj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8272
WP No. 64429 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 64429 OF 2012 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MADIVALAPPA S/O. SHIVARAYAPPA PUJAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HITTANAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. SHRIKANT S/O. SHIVARAYAPPA PUJAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HITTANAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.
3. SMT. MANJULA W/O. SHRIKANT PUJAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HITTANAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
AND:
B SHELAR
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR Location:
DHARWAD
Date:
2023.08.08
12:36:23 -0700 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYAT, SAUNDATTI,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.
3. THE SECRETARY,
GRAM PANCHAYAT, SUTAGATTI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.
4. SRI SHANTAYYA S/O. IRRAYYA DHUPAD
@ CHIKKAMATH,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8272
WP No. 64429 of 2012
RESPONDENT NO.4 DIED BY HIS LRS.
R4(A) SMT. CHANNAWWA W/O. SHANTHAYYA DUPAD,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. HITTANAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
R4(B) SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. VEERAIAH MATHAPATHI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SHIRASANGI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
R4(C) SRI MAHABTHAYYA SHANTHAYYA DUPAD,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HITTANAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
R4(D) SRI BASAVARAJ S/O. SHANTHAYYA DUPAD,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HITTANAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
R4(E) SMT. NEELAWWA W/O. BASAYYA NANDIKOLMATH,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DADAWAD VILLAGE,
TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.H. PATIL, AGA FOR R1, SRI V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH,
ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE FOR
R4 (A TO E))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED:31/05/2012 ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 IN NO. KRU.TA.PA: SA: APPEAL:VVA.02/2010-11 ANNEXURE-A
TO THE WRIT PETITION.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8272
WP No. 64429 of 2012
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Captioned petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the
order passed by respondent No.1-Chief Executive Officer vide
Annexure-A.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for legal representatives of deceased
respondent No.4 and learned AGA for respondent No.1 and also
the standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
3. A short point that needs consideration at the hands
of this Court is as to whether respondent No.2/Appellate
Authority erred in setting aside the resolution No.5 dated
29.01.1998. The petitioners claim that they are in possession of
property bearing VPC No.299/A. Respondent No.3-Gram
Panchayath has passed a resolution on 29.01.1998 indicating
petitioner's father has put up a shed in VPC No.299/A. The
original respondent No.4-Shantayya filed a suit seeking relief of
declaration and injunction in O.S.No.120/2007. It is stated
across the bar that the suit filed by respondent No.4-Shantayya
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8272
WP No. 64429 of 2012
seeking relief of declaration and injunction is dismissed and the
same is pending consideration before the Appellate Court.
4. It appears the petitioners' father Shivarayappa
claims that he has put up a shed in VPC No.299/A while original
respondent No.4 is asserting title and is claiming to be in
possession. Though respondent No.2-Appellate Authority has
taken cognizance of dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.120/2007,
however by taking note of pendency of appeal filed by
respondent No.4 in R.A.No.11/2008 has proceeded to set aside
the resolution. This findings appears to be erroneous.
5. If the legal representatives of respondent No.4
succeed in pending appeal in R.A.No.11/2008 and if the
appellate Court declares that the legal representatives of
respondent No.4 as absolute owners, it is always open for the
legal representatives of respondent No.4 to furnish a copy of
the judgment and take all possible recourse to get their names
mutated to the property under dispute. If claim made by
respondent No.4 that he is the owner in possession is rejected
by the Trial Court and if he has suffered a dismissal decree, the
impugned resolution cannot be set aside at this stage. It is only
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8272
WP No. 64429 of 2012
after legal representatives of respondent No.4 are able to
establish their title, the consequences would follow. With this
observation, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned resolution passed by respondent
No.2-Authority vide Annexure-A is restored and
will be subject to outcome of the appeal pending
in R.A.No.11/2008.
iii) In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive
for consideration and are disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
