Karnataka High Court
Gopala Poojary vs Taluuru Grama Panchayath on 9 August, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:28243
RSA No. 1974 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1974 OF 2017 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
GOPALA POOJARY
S/O GOVINDA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
MASTHIMANE, HOSAMATA
THALLUR VILLAGE AND POST
KUNDAPURA TALUK-574201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHRIHARI K, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF TALUURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
KUNDAPUR TALUK-574201
...RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.08.2017
PASSED IN R.A NO.16/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:28243
RSA No. 1974 of 2017
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The counsel would vehemently contend in the
second appeal that the defendant has not placed any
material to show that the property belongs to the
Panchayat and also contend that in terms of RTC it is
mentioned as Government but not mentioned as it belongs
to Panchayat and in the absence of any document to show
that property belongs to Panchayat, the Trial Court ought
not to have dismissed the suit. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court also
committed an error in confirming the order of the Trial
Court without considering the material on record. Hence,
it requires interference of this Court and to frame
substantial question of law.
NC: 2023:KHC:28243
RSA No. 1974 of 2017
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and also on perusal of the material on record it
discloses that PW1 i.e., the appellant herein got marked
the document at Ex.P1 and the same also placed before
this Court and on perusal of RTC in column No.9 it is
mentioned as Government that is with regard to
possession is concerned and in column No.11 i.e., the
rights of the parties is concerned, it is specifically
mentioned as Panchayat building and it is the case of the
respondent that at the time of issuing notices, the
appellant had encroached the property belonging to the
Panchayat, and the said notices were got marked as
Ex.P2, P3, P5 and also Ex.D3 and D4.
4. Having perused the order of the Trial Court it
discloses that the Trial Court in detail discussed with
regard to the evidence available on record and also taken
note of the admission given by PW1 that he has not
obtained any licence and also not made any application in
writing to get the licence from the Panchayat and with an
NC: 2023:KHC:28243
RSA No. 1974 of 2017
intention to get the decree to confirm his possession only,
the appellant has filed the suit. The Trial Court having
taken note of the admission and as well as Section 72 of
the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act where the powers are
given to the Panchayat to remove any such construction or
obstruction and comes to the conclusion that the
appellant/plaintiff is in possession while answering Issue
No.1 and answered issue No.2 as negative in coming to
the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved that the
respondent/defendant is interfering with the plaintiff's
peaceful possession of suit 'A' schedule property by trying
to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property
since the defendant has issued the notice in accordance
with law and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has
unauthorizedly put up an illegal structure over the public
place which causing danger to the users of the public road
while answering Issue No.3. When such finding is given by
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also on re-
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, formulated the points for consideration
NC: 2023:KHC:28243
RSA No. 1974 of 2017
in the appeal and comes to the conclusion that the Trial
Court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit
and the judgment of the Trial Court is not perverse.
5. Having perused the reasoning given by the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court and though the counsel
for the appellant contend that both the Courts have
committed an error, I do not find any error committed by
the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The
only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant in
the second appeal that the respondent/defendant under
the Panchayat Raj Act, has got any right to dispossess the
owner of the bunk shop which is within the road margin of
the State highway which belongs to the Public Works
Department and admittedly, the very contention that the
appellant is having a bunk shop within the road margin of
State highway is not in dispute but it is contended that it
belongs to Public Works Department. I have already
pointed out that in column No.11 of the RTC which has
been placed before the court it shows that the Panchayat
NC: 2023:KHC:28243
RSA No. 1974 of 2017
is the owner of the property and only in column No.9 it is
mentioned as it belongs to the State that is possession is
concerned. When such material is available on record, I
do not find any ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC to
frame substantial questions of law and to admit the
second appeal.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
