Karnataka High Court
Smt Sabavva W/O Parmeshwar ... vs Smt Nagawwa Manappa Adagimani on 31 July, 2023
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar, G Basavaraja
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7932-DB
WA No. 100099 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100099 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SABAVVA,
W/O. PARMESHWAR MALAKANNAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD.
2. SRI. PARASAPPA GULAPPA MALANNAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
3. YALLAPPA S/O. GULAPPA MALAKANNAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
4. SRI. BEERAPPA GULAPPA MALANNAVAR,
Digitally signed
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
by JAGADISH T R OCC: AGRICULTURE.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
Date: 2023.08.04 5. SOMAPPA GULAPPA MALAKANNAVAR,
15:46:28 +0530 AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
(ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF YADAHALLI,
TALUK DIST: BAGALKOT)-587117.
6. GURUSIDDAPPA GULAPPA MALAKANNAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOVALLI VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SANTOSH B.MANE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7932-DB
WA No. 100099 of 2022
AND:
MANAPPA
S/O. SABAPPA ADAGIMANI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
1. SMT. NAGAWWA MANAPPA ADAGIMANI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
2. SRI. SABANNA MANAPPA ADAGIMANI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
3. SMT. MUDEWWA W/O. PADIYAPPA KARIGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
4. SMT. CHANDRAWWA SIDDAPPA GOUDAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
(ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KOVALLI VILLAGE,
BILAGI TALUK, DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT BAGALKOT.
6. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT DIST, BAGALKOT.
7. SRI. DUSANGAPPA MANAPPA ADAGIMANI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN.
8. SMT. YALLAWWA HAVAPPA BIDAKI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN.
9. SMT. SIDDAVVA HANAMANTH GAJAPPANAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN.
10. SMT. SHAVAKKA PUNDALIKAPPA POOJARI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN.
(R7 TO R10 ARE RESIDENTS OF
KOVALLI VILLAGE BILAGI TALUK,
DIST: BAGALKOT)-587116.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARNJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE
FOR R1 TO R4, R7 TO R10,
SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R5 AND R6)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7932-DB
WA No. 100099 of 2022
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.105438/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.105438/2021 BY GRANTING THE
RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal takes exception to the
impugned order in W.P. No.105438/2021, dated
12.01.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby
the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking quashing
of the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the fifth
respondent-Deputy Commissioner in revision petition
(R.P. No.51/2018) was dismissed by the learned Single
Judge.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants,
the learned High Court Government Pleader for the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7932-DB
WA No. 100099 of 2022
respondents-State, and the learned counsel for the
private respondents.
3. The material on record discloses that the
appellants/writ petitioners and respondents No.1 to 4 & 7
to 10 are rival claimants in relation to the subject land in
respect of which the Deputy Commissioner deleted the
names of the appellants and inserted the names of the
private respondents, aggrieved by which, the appellants-
writ petitioners preferred the aforesaid writ challenging
the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Prior to
the said writ petition being preferred, a suit in O.S.
No.103/2014 had already been instituted by the
appellants-writ petitioners which was withdrawn before
the said writ petition came up for disposal before the
learned Single Judge. Under these circumstances, the
learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the impugned
order dismissing the challenge to the order of the Deputy
Commissioner, aggrieved by which, the appellants are
before this Court by way of the present appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7932-DB
WA No. 100099 of 2022
4. After arguing the matter for some time, the
learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners, on
instructions, submits that the appellants may be
permitted to withdraw the appeal reserving liberty in their
favour to institute a comprehensive suit before the
competent civil court for the purpose of ventilating their
grievances in relation to subject properties in accordance
with law and necessary directions are to be issued in this
regard.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondents-State and the learned
counsel for the private respondents would support the
impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the
appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is
seen that there are rival claims of title and possession
between the appellants and the private respondents in
relation to the subject properties. Under these
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7932-DB
WA No. 100099 of 2022
circumstances, we deem it just and proper to dispose of
this appeal reserving liberty in favour of the appellants to
institute a suit before the competent civil court to
ventilate their grievances in accordance with law. In the
event such a suit is instituted within two months from
today, the appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. So also, in the
event of the appellants instituting a suit, as stated supra,
the entries in the revenue records in relation to the
subject properties as well as the orders passed by the
Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy
Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge will not
affect the rights and contentions of the parties, and the
entries in the revenue records would ultimately be
governed by the final outcome of the civil suit that would
be filed by the appellants.
Subject to the aforesaid liberty reserved to the
appellants-writ petitioners and leaving open all the rival
contentions, the appeal is disposed of by modifying the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7932-DB
WA No. 100099 of 2022
impugned order. It is also made clear that withdrawal of
the suit in O.S. No.103/2014 will not preclude the
appellant from instituting the aforesaid suit as stated
supra which shall be decided on merits by the competent
court in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMS
