Karnataka High Court
Laxman S/O Saibanna Kothari Since ... vs The Rehabilitation Officer Kbjnl ... on 28 February, 2023
Bench: C M Bycmjj
-1-
RSA No. 200254 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200254 OF 2015 (INJ-)
BETWEEN:
LAXMAN S/O SAIBANNA KOTHARI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1. SATTAWWA W/O LAXMAN KOTHARI,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. SANGAWWA W/O GULAPPA WALIKAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
3. SHANKRAWWA W/O MALLAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
4. SHRISHAIL S/O LAXMAN KOTHARI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. BOURAWWA W/O ARJUN DALAWAI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
6. VITHAL S/O LAXMAN KOTHARI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed 7. LAXMIBAI W/O YALLAPPA KOTHARI,
by SOMANATH AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
PENTAPPA
MITTE
Location: High 8. ANIL @ ANAND S/O YALLAPPA KOTHARI,
Court of
Karnataka AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
9. RAVIKUMAR @ SHIVANAND S/O YALLAPPA KOTHARI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
10. MANJUNATH S/O YALLAPPA KOTHARI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
11. SHRIDEVI D/O YALLAPPA KOTHARI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL R/O KOLHAR, TQ. B.BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYPUR-586101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UMESH V. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
RSA No. 200254 of 2015
AND:
1. THE REHABILITATION OFFICER,
KBJNL ALMATTI, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYPUR-586101.
2. SHANTAWWA W/O SANGAPPA HARANATTI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KOLHAR, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYPUR-586101.
3. RAMESH S/O SANGAPPA HARANATTI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O KOLHAR, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYPUR-586101.
4. SHRISHAIL S/O SANGAPPA HARANATTI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O KOLHAR, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYPUR-586101.
5. AKKAWWA W/O KARIYAPPA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O NEAR KEB, BILAGI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
6. KASTURI W/O SHEKHARAPPA HARNATTI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KOLHAR, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYPUR-586101.
7. YALAGURESH S/O SHEKAPPA HARANATTI,
AGE: 23. YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. KOLHAR, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYPUR-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SUDHEER KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2, R3, R4 & R6;
NOTICE TO R1 & R7 ARE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.06.2015
PASSED IN RA NO.120/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DIST.
JUDGE, VIJAYPUR. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 06.09.2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BASAVANA BAGEWADI, IN OS NO.143/2011 (OLD OS NO.167/2004)
AND ETC.
-3-
RSA No. 200254 of 2015
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
C.M.JOSHI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
None appear for the appellants. Counsel for the respondent
Nos.2 to 4 and 6 are present. Respondent Nos.1 and 7 have not
appeared despite service of notice. Appellants have not taken
steps to serve the notice of this appeal on respondent No.5,
despite ample opportunities since 2015.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6. It is submitted that the appellants
have approached this Court in second appeal against the
concurrent findings of the Trial court and the first appellate Court.
It is also submitted that the respondent No.1 had allotted a site to
the father of respondent No.2 to 4 and 6 on compassionate
grounds regarding the submergence of the lands belonging to
them. Similarly the appellant was also allotted a site by the
respondent No.1. The documents regarding the allotment to the
sites to the appellant were corrected by themselves and there was
no records to show that the site which has been allotted to the
father of respondent Nos.2, 4 and 6 was really allotted to the
appellant. Therefore, the Trial court as well as first appellate Court
RSA No. 200254 of 2015
have rejected the claim of the appellant and as such the appellant
has approached this Court.
3. There being no submission by learned counsel for the
appellant and since the matter is of the year 2015 and also that the
appellant has not taken steps to serve the notice of this appeal on
respondent No.5, there is no need to continue with this appeal. In
view of the factual circumstances narrated by the learned counsel
for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6, no substantial question of law
also emanate from the records. Therefore, the appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP
