Malliksab vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 825 Kant

                           -1-




                                   WP No. 106486 of 2016


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                         BEFORE
           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
      WRIT PETITION NO. 106486 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:

1.   MALLIKSAB
     S/O RAJESAB BAVAKHANAVAR,
     AGE: 54 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. BHANDIWAD,
     TQ HUBBALLI.
     DISTRICT DHARWAD

2.   APPASAB
     S/O RAJESAB BAVAKHANAVAR,
     AGE: 49 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. BHANDIWAD,
     TQ HUBBALLI.
     DISTRICT DHARWAD

3.   MODINSAB
     S/O RAJESAB BAVAKHANAVAR,
     AGE: 53 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. BHANDIWAD,
     TQ: HUBBALLI.
     DISTRICT DHARWAD



                                             ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH .,ADVOCATE)

AND:
                                -2-




                                     WP No. 106486 of 2016


1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
      M.S. BUILDING,
      BENGALURU
      BY ITS SECRETARY

2.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
      DHARWAD.

3.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
      DHARWAD SUB-DVISION
      DHARWAD.

4.    THE TAHASILDAR,
      HUBBALLI

5     DAVALBI
      W/O RAJESAB BAVAKKANAVAR
      (SICE MADARKHANAVAR),
5A    SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
      SMT.HUSENBEE
      W/O GANISAB NADEEMULLANAVAR
      AGED 67 YEARS,
      OCC HOUSEHOLD,
      R/O. KUMBAR ONI,
      AT POST MULAGUND
      TALUK and DIST GADAG

5B    SMT.CHANDBEE
      W/O MOULASAB NALAVADI
      AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
      OCC HOUSEHOLD,
      R/O. AT POST BADRAPUR,
      TALUK NAVALGUOND,
      DISTRICT DHARWAD

5C.   SMT.BIBIJAN
      W/O HAJARESAB ICHOLIWAL
      AGED 57 YEARS,
      OCC HOUSEHOLD,
      R/O. MASTANSOPHA,
                             -3-




                                   WP No. 106486 of 2016


     OLD HUBBALLI,
     HUBBALLI
     DIST DHARWAD

5D. SMT.MAMTAJ BEGAUM
    W/O MOHAMMED KALIPANAVAR,
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
    OCC HOUSEHOLD,
    R/O. KUMBAR ONI,
    AT POST MULAGUND
    TALUK AND DIST GADAG

6.   DAWALBI
     W/O MODINSAB MADARKHANAVAR,
     AGE 57 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O. BENGERI,
     VENKATESH COLONY,
     TQ: HUBBALLI.

7    NAZEERAHMAD
     S/O MODINSAB MADARKHANAVAR,
     AGE: 40 YEARS,
     OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVICE,
     R/O. BENGERI,
     VENKATESH COLONY,
     TQ: HUBBALLI.

8    RAZIYABEGUM
     W/O SHIBBIRSAB
     (SIC SHABBIRSAB)
     KALEKHAN,
     AGE: 35 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O. POLICE QUATERS,
     SHIGGAON,
     DIST: HAVERI.

9    RIYAZAHMAD
     S/O MODINSAB MADARKHANAVAR,
     AGE: 35 YEARS,
                                   -4-




                                         WP No. 106486 of 2016


    OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O. BHANDIWAD,
    TQ: HUBBALLI.



                                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1-R4.,
     SRI.G.A.BHAT, ADV., FOR R9; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5
     (A,C, AND D) HELD SUFFICIENT; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
     R5(B) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R6 TO 8 ARE SERVED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OF THE
ORDER DATED:21.07.2014 AT ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE 3rd
RESPONDENT.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

1. Heard Sri.Mallikarjun B Hiremath, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional

Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

contended that, being aggrieved by the order passed by the

respondents-authorities, the present writ petition is filed,

whereby the respondents-authorities, while dismissing the

petition filed by the petitioners herein, have referred to the

WP No. 106486 of 2016

judgment and decree in OS.No.294/2011 and against which,

the respondents herein have filed RA.No.81/2014, which came

to be dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed in

O.S.No.294/2011 and therefore, the impugned orders requires

to be interfered with in this writ petition.

3. Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate sought to justify the impugned orders.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties, on perusal of the writ papers would indicate that, the

petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.294/2011 before the II

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, seeking declaration and

permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property

and the said suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree

dated 20/8/2014 and being aggrieved by the same, the

respondents herein have filed R.A.No.81/2014.

5. On careful consideration of the impugned orders

would indicate that R.A.No.81/2014 was pending consideration

before the First Appellate Court at the time of passing of the

impugned orders. In view of the submission made by learned

WP No. 106486 of 2016

counsel appearing for the petitioners that RA.No.81/2014 was

dismissed by the First Appellate Court, confirming the judgment

and decree in OS.No.294/2011, I am of the opinion that, the

impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3

requires to be set aside and the matter is remanded to the

respondent No.3 herein in RTS/AP/261/2011-12 to reconsider

the issue afresh, by considering the judgments and decree

passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VB