Karnataka High Court
Muralidhar vs The Secretary on 1 August, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10845
WP No. 105253 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 105253 OF 2016 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. MURALIDHAR S/O SHYAMARAO KARANT,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MAHATMA BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
KOPPADKERI, DHARWAD-580 001.
2. SHIVANAGOUDA
S/O RUDRAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDRA,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O: MAHATMA BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
KOPPADKERI, DHARWAD-580 001.
3. SHANKARAGOUDA
S/O RUDRAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDRA,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O: MAHATMA BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
KOPPADKERI, DHARWAD-580 001.
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH 4. SANGANAGOUDA
COURT OF S/O RUDRAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDRA,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MAHATMA BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
KOPPADKERI, DHARWAD-580 001.
5. YALLANAGOUDA
S/O RUDRAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDRA,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MAHATMA BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
KOPPADKERI, DHARWAD-580 001.
6. PRAKASH S/O SHIVAMURTEPPA HAWANAGI,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10845
WP No. 105253 of 2016
R/O: MAHATMA BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
KOPPADKERI, DHARWAD-580 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.B.DODDAGOUDAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY,
THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES
AND SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION,
NO.14/3, II FLOOR, CFC BUILDING,
NRUPTUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. LAXMAN.E.DODDAMANI,
CONVENOR, AGE: MAJOR,
DISTRICT COMMITTEE,
KARNATAKA DALITA SANGARSHA
SAMITHI (R), NAIKWADI PLOT,
SRINAGAR, DHARWAD-580 001.
3. MAHESH S/O GOPAL BELAGAONVAKAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: JAIBHEEMANAGAR,
MADARMADDI, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.JAGADISH., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar., learned counsel for the
petitioners has appeared in person.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10845
2. The notice to the respondents was ordered on
12.07.2016. A perusal of the office note depicts that
respondents 2 and 3 are served and unrepresented. They
have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor
conducted the case as a party in person.
3. The summons dated 23.05.2016 issued by the
first respondent vide Annexures-A and A1 are called into
question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in
the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged
several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf
of the petitioner and perused the Writ papers with utmost
care.
5. The short point that arises for consideration is
whether the Commission had the power to initiate
proceedings relating to civil rights.
6. The issue revolves around the competence of the
commission to receive a complaint and issue a summons.
Contending that he is the owner of the land bearing
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10845
Sy.No.14A/2 measuring 01 Acre 28 Guntas situated at
Dharwad, Mahesh - the third respondent filed a complaint
before the Karnataka State Scheduled Cates and Scheduled
Tribes Committee. He alleged that the petitioners were
interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
property. Taking note of the complaint, the summons was
issued to the petitioners and they filed a suitable reply and a
written version before the Commission.
It is pivotal to note that petitioners 2 to 6 filed a suit on
the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad in
O.S.No.373/2014 against the third respondent Mahesh and
others seeking a relief of declaration and permanent
injunction in respect of the very same property. The Trial
Court vide Judgment dated 10th day of October 2022,
decreed the suit. The first petitioner - Muralidhar and others
filed a suit on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Dharwad in O.S.No.233/2014 seeking a relief of declaration
and injunction. The Trial Court vide Judgment dated 28th day
of February 2018, decreed the suit holding that the sale deed
dated 11.05.2012 executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favor
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10845
of defendant No.1 does not bind the rights of the plaintiffs
over the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties.
The grievance of the third respondent relates to civil
rights. The parties have agitated their civil rights before the
competent Civil Court and the Trial Court passed the
Judgment and Decree. In my view, the matter is ceased by
the Civil Court. Hence, filing a complaint and the initiation of
proceedings by the Commission concerning civil rights is
untenable in law. The Commission has acted without any
authority of law. Therefore, the summons issued by the first
respondent are untenable and are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, they are quashed.
7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The summons
dated 23.05.2016 issued by the first respondent vide
Annexures-A & A1 are quashed.
8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
