Karnataka High Court
Shri Shatayya S/O Irayya Dhupad Aliyas ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4423-DB
WA No. 100672 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100672 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI SHANTAYYA S/O IRAYYA DHUPAD @
CHIKKAMATH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
SMT CHANNAWWA W/O SHANTHAYYA DUPAD
AGE 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
2. SMT MAHADEVI W/O VEERAIAH MATHAPATHI
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
3. SHRI MAHABTHAYYA S/O SHANTHAYYA DUPAD
AGE 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
4. SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O SHANTHAYYA DUPAD
AGE 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
APPELLANT NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE
KM
SOMASHEKAR
R/O HITTANAGI VILLAGE, TQ. SAUNDATTI
Digitally signed by
DIST. BELAGAVI 591126.
K M SOMASHEKAR
Date: 2024.02.24
10:22:46 +0530
5. SMT NEELAWWA W/O BASAYYA NADIKOLMATH
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
R/O DADAWAD VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL
DIST. BELAGAVI 591104.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4423-DB
WA No. 100672 of 2023
2. THE CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYAT SAUNDATTI
TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591125.
3. THE SECRETARY
GRAM PANCHAYAT SUTAGATTI VILLAGE
TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591126.
4. SHRI MADIVALAPPA S/O SHIVARAYAPPA PUJAR
AGE 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
5. SHRI SHRIKANT S/O SHIVARAYAPPA PUJAR
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
6. SHRI MANJULA W/O SHRIKANT PUJAR
AGE 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE
R/O HITTANAGI VILLAGE, TQ. SAUNDATTI
DIST. BELAGAVI 591126
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3,
SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03-08-2023 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT
PETITION NO.64429 OF 2012 (LB-RES) BY ALLOWING THE
APPEAL BY ALLOWING WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR BY
ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4423-DB
WA No. 100672 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The appellants are in appeal under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 questioning the correctness
and legality of order dated 3.8.2023 passed in WP
No.64429/2012, wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the
writ petition and restored the resolution passed by 2nd
respondent, subject to outcome of appeal pending in RA
No.11/2008.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Santosh B Rawoot for
the appellants, learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj V Hiremath for
respondents No.2 and 3 and Sri.K Anandkumar, learned
counsel for respondents No.4 to 6. Perused the appeal papers.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit
that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in
allowing the writ petition without considering the contention of
the appellants that they are in possession of the land in
VPC.No.299/A to an extent of 50 x 80 feet granted by the
SLAO, MP, Saundatti by order dated 8.1.1973. Learned counsel
would submit that respondents No.4 to 6 taking advantage, are
disturbing the possession of the appellants. More over, he
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4423-DB
submits that respondents No.4 to 6 are unauthorized occupants
of the property in question and they have no any manner of
right over the said property. Therefore, he submits that the
learned Single Judge could not have restored the resolution
passed by respondent No.2, since respondent No.2 had rightly
entered the name of the appellants. Thus, he prays for
allowing the appeal.
4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. K. Anandkumar for
respondents No.4 to 6, who are the petitioners before the writ
Court, would submit that respondents No.4 to 6 are in
possession of the different land bearing VPC No.299/A and the
appellants are not concerned with the said land. More over, he
submits that the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed,
against which appeal in RA No.11/2008 filed by the appellants
is pending consideration. Therefore, he submits that learned
Single Judge is justified in restoring the resolution passed by
respondent No.2 with an observation that the same would be
subject to outcome of the appeal pending in RA No.11/2008.
Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4423-DB
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers, we are of the view that no
ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
6. The appellants/respondents No.4(a to e) claimed
that they are in possession of the property bearing VPC No.299
by virtue of grant order dated 8.1.1973, whereas the
petitioners who are respondents No.4 to 6 in this writ appeal
claimed that they are in possession of property bearing VPC
No.299/A. It is the case of the appellants that respondents
No.4 to 6 herein are in unauthorized occupation of VPC
No.299/A and they are disturbing the possession of the
appellants. But, admittedly, the appellants had filed suit in OS
No.120/2007 and the said suit is dismissed, against which, RA
No.11/2008 filed by the appellants herein is pending
consideration. In that circumstance, without going into the
merits or otherwise of the case of the parties, we are of the
view that the learned Single Judge is justified and right in
restoring the resolution passed by respondent No.2 with an
observation that the said restoration would be subject to
outcome of the pending appeal in RA No.11/2008. No ground
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4423-DB
is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single
Judge. Accordingly, writ appeal stands rejected.
Pending applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and they are disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
