Karnataka High Court
Shri Shrikant S/O Nagalingappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Sachin Shankar Byssmj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
W.P. NO. 104016 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI SHRIKANT S/O. NAGALINGAPPA KAYAKADH
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PURADAKERI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. TIPPUSAB S/O. KAJASAB @ JATHIGAR @ BADIGER
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PURÁDAKERI VILLAGE,TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
3. SHRI SIDAPPA S/O. VIRUPAKASHAPPA BEVINAHALLI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PURADAKERI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
4. SHRI GADIGEPPA S/O. VIRAPPA KUMBALUR
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PURADAKERI VILLAGE, TQ: HIRAKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR 5. SHARIFSAB S/O. GAJASAB @ JATHIGAR @ BADIGER
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PURADAKERI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
6. SHRI YOGESH S/O. BASAPPA KAYAKADH
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PURADAKERI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
7. SHRI UMESHAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA LOTANAVAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KIRAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2
8. SHRI HUSSAINSAB S/O. HASANSAB BELLALLI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
9. MDHAMMADSAB S/O. DIWANSAB DIVABJANAVAR
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
10. SHRI AMANULLA S/O. BUDENSAB BINNIKOD
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
11. SMT. MUBBINABHI W/O. HABIBULLA HORAKOTI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
12. SHRI SHARIFSAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB KITTUR
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
13. SHRI. MANJAPPA S/O. HOLLABASAPPA KAYATTAR
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
14. SHRI HUSSAINSAB S/O. MUNAFSAB NANDIGUDI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
15. SHRI DADASAB S/O. CHAMANSAB MAGANNUR
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
16. SHRI. TAJUSAB S/O. DIWANSAB DIWANJANAVAR
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
17. SHRI RASHIDSAB S/O VANNURSAB RATI
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE,TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
3
18. SHRI. KALANDARSAB S/O. PIRSAB KUPPELUR
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
19. SHRI CHANDPIRSAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB KUPPELUR
@ YERESHIMI
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
20. SHRI BUDDANSAB S/O. HUSSAIN KUPPELUR
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
21. SHRI FAKIRSAB S/O. JAMALSAB KOTTIHAL
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
22. SHRI IBRAHIMSAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB KOTTIHAL
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
23. SHRI HONNURSAB S/O. VANNURSAB RATI
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
24. SHRI FAKIRASAB S/O. MAHABOOBSAB PINJAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
25. SHRI TAJUDDINSAB S/O. GUDDUSAB BINNIKOD
AGE: 92 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
26. SHRI. MAHAMMADSAB S/O. CHAMANSAB MAGANNUR
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
27. SHRI ISMAILSAB S/O. JAMMALSAB HUBBALLI
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE,TQ: HIREKERUR DIST: HAVERI.
4
28. SHRI MAHANMADALI S/O. HUSSAINSAB KOTIHAL
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE,TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
4. THE TASHILDAR
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
5. G.M. SUGARS & ENERGY LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI Y.S. NATARAJ, AGE: 74 YEARS,
GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-09.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4,
SRI.RAGHAVENDRA KATTIMANI, ADV. FOR SRI.GURUBASAVARAJ S.M.,
ADV. FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR
DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE
COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.DC-HAV-15022(11)/259/2017-HAV-LAQ
DATED 03-02-2023 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-G AS
ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
5
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 25.09.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by in all 28 agriculturists
feeling aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated
03.02.2023 vide Annexure-G wherein respondent No.2-Deputy
Commissioner has issued a communication addressed to the
jurisdictional police station to provide police protection to
respondent No.5 sugar factory. The said order is under
challenge.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.5 sugar factory.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the
grounds urged in the writ petition, stand taken by respondent
No.5 and the statement of objections. I have also taken
cognizance of the additional documents produced by the
learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. On examining the order passed in O.S.No.89/2021,
I am of the view that the order passed by respondent No.2-
Deputy Commissioner in directing the jurisdictional police to
provide police protection to respondent No.5 sugar factory is
one without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is liable to be
set aside by this court. The petitioners herein claim that
Sy.No.53 measuring 332.52 guntas of Chatanalli village and
the above said survey number is originally Devasthan Inam
land of Srirngerimatha. In view of abolition of inam, the
petitioners claim that though they are lawfully cultivating the
lands in question, they failed to seek grant of occupancy rights
on account of illiteracy. However, petitioners claim that they
are in lawful possession and they are cultivating the lands in
question.
5. It is borne out from the records that respondent
No.5 has filed a suit for injunction simplictor in
O.S.No.89/2021 against the present petitioners and other
villagers. In the said suit, respondent No.5 filed an application
seeking interim injunction in respect of Sy.No.53/5A/2. The
said application was strongly resisted by the present
petitioners. The learned Judge having examined the rival
contentions was not inclined to grant injunction in favour of
respondent No.5. It is borne from the records that though an
application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking
injunction by respondent No.5 is rejected by the trial court,
respondent No.5 has not questioned the said order.
6. This court in batch of petitions while disposing of
the writ petition has granted some protection to the present
petitioners herein and the authorities are directed not to
demolish the building and take possession of the land while
disposing writ petition No.47747/2017 along with the
connected batch of petitions. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.5 having
filed vacating application has filed one more suit in
O.S.No89/2021 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge &
JMFC, Hirekerur seeking bare injunction. I have given my
anxious consideration to the pleadings averred in the said suit.
On examining the averments in the plaint, it is clearly evident
that respondent No.5 has virtually suppressed the previous
litigation.
7. Now coming to the order under challenge, I am of
the view that respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner though
has taken cognizance of pendency of several civil suits has
strangely usurped the jurisdiction of the court and has decided
the possessory rights. The order under challenge does not
indicate under what provisions respondent No.2 has exercised
his jurisdiction in directing the jurisdictional police station to
provide police protection. It is a trite law that when the civil
disputes are seized before the competent civil courts, the
revenue authorities should not venture into deciding the claim
of the parties which are purely civil in nature. If
respondent No.5 has suffered an order in O.S.No.89/2021, the
remedy of respondent No.5 if any is to prefer an appeal and
question the rejection of an application filed under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2. The law relating to providing police protection is
also no more res integra. In catena of judgments, this court
has held that even where a party has a benefit of an interim
injunction granted by a civil court, cannot seek police
protection in a mechanical manner and civil courts which have
granted injunction should not normally grant police protection,
unless some compelling circumstances are demonstrated and
substantiated by a party who has benefit of an interim
injunction. In the present case on hand, respondent No.5
having failed to get an interim injunction at the hands of the
civil court, has strangely approached respondent No.2-Deputy
Commissioner who has no jurisdiction to grant such a
protection. If respondent No.5 is aggrieved by the order
passed by the court on an application filed under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.89/2021, he has efficacious
remedy under Civil Procedure Code.
8. In the light of discussion made supra, the order
passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner is one
without jurisdiction. Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner
ought not to have entertained the request made by
respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 in all probability cannot
venture into forum shopping and by suppressing pendency of
suit and rejection of injunction would not have made an
application to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner seeking
police protection. The material on record clearly demonstrates
that respondent No.5 has deliberately chosen the forum of
Deputy Commissioner to secure a favourable outcome. The
order under challenge is also liable to be set aside on the
ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The present
petitioners are asserting possessory right and their suit is
pending consideration in O.S.No.32/2015. The Coordinate
Bench of this court in batch of petitions has granted some
protection to the petitioners pending consideration of the
suits. Therefore, respondent No.5 to overcome an order
passed by the competent civil court passed on an application
filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 could not have approached
respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. If a competent civil
court referring to prima facie material has declined to grant
injunction by recording a finding that it is the petitioners who
are found in possession of Sy.No.53 measuring 332.52
guntas, the impugned order vide Annexure-G passed by
respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in directing the police
officer to grant police protection is one without jurisdiction.
Revenue Officers do not have power on property title row and
that includes disputes relating possession over immovable
property. If a competent court has declined to grant
temporary injunction in a pending suit, even an interlocutory
order binds revenue authorities. The direction issued by
respondent No.2 as per impugned endorsement vide
Annexure-G has all the characteristics of appellate court
reversing order of trial court rejecting application filed by
petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 seeking temporary
injunction. Therefore, the impugned endorsement is one
without jurisdiction. Respondent No.2 has entertained a civil
dispute and therefore has exceeded in his jurisdiction. The
same is found to be patently erroneous and is liable to be set
aside. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned endorsement issued by respondent
No.2-Deputy Commissioner dated 03.02.2023 vide
Annexure-G is hereby set aside.
iii) All contentions are kept open.
iv) Parties are at liberty to seek adjudication of their
rights in pending suits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS
