Karnataka High Court
Sri.Siddappa Siddramappa Sangmad vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:683
RSA No. 100089 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100089/2020(INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDAPPA SIDDRAMAPPA SANGMAD,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BASAPUR - 508 117, MUNDGOD TALUK,
UTTAR KANNADA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI R. G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, U.K., KARWAR - 581 301.
2. THE TAHASILDAR, MUNDGOD,
TQ: MUNDGOD - 582 103, U.K.
3. THE ASST. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
Digitally
signed by MUNDGOD SUB DIVISION,
VINAYAKA TQ: MUNDGOD - 582 103, U.K.
BV
4. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
RANGE FOREST OFFICE,
MUNDGOD, U.K - 582 103.
5. THE SECTION FORESTER,
INDORE SECTION, MUNDGOD RANGE,
TQ: MUNDGOD, U.K. - 582 103.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE AND
DECREE DATED 26.11.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.25/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, YELLAPUR, SITTING AT
MUNDGOD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:683
RSA No. 100089 of 2020
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 19.11.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.8/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR DN),
MUNDGOD, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has challenged the concurrent finding of
the fact that he is not in possession of the suit schedule
property and therefore he is not entitled to the relief of
perpetual injunction.
2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial Court
while the respondents were the defendants.
3. The appellant filed the suit for perpetual injunction
in respect of a village forest land in survey No.232, Nandikatta
Village of Mundgod Taluk, measuring 3 acre 20 guntas out of
the larger extent of 406.28 acres of land. The plaintiff claimed
that he was in possession of the aforesaid land from the year
1978 and was cultivating it. He claimed that the State
Government had issued a notification in the year 1978 to
regularize the aforesaid cultivation and that the respondents
had not taken any steps to consider his request for
regularization. He claimed that on 13.02.2006 the 5th
NC: 2024:KHC-D:683
respondent damaged the cotton crop raised in the suit schedule
property and also wanted him to vacate the suit schedule
property, failing which he would be thrown out. Thus he
sought for perpetual injunction.
4. The suit was contested by the respondents, who
denied the claim of the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff
had no document to establish that he had encroached into the
property and was cultivating it.
5. Based on these contentions, the suit was taken up
for trial. The plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and he marked
EX-P1 to P7 and also examined three other witnesses. The
defendant examined its Assistant Conservator of Forest as DW-
1 and marked as EX-D1 to D5.
6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial court held that the plaintiff did not produce any
documentary evidence to establish that he was cultivating the
suit schedule property from the year 1978. It perused EX-P1 to
P6 and held that the name of the plaintiff was shown in column
No.12 of the RTC for the year 1975-76, as an unauthorized
cultivator of forest land, whereas in column No.9, it was shown
as forest land. It also noticed that horse gram was raised in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:683
the suit schedule property. The Trial Court held that this was a
stray entry which was supported by any persons proceeding or
record. Except this document, there was no other document to
establish that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit
schedule property as on the date of the suit. The trial court
therefore held that the plaintiff was not able to establish his
continuous possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property
and consequently dismissed the suit.
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree
the plaintiff filed R.A No.25/2011. The first appellate court
secured the records of the trial court, heard the parties and
framed the following points for consideration.
a) Whether trial court has committed an error in appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence and come to incorrect
conclusion resulting in injustice to the appellant?
b) Whether judgment and decree of the trial court require to
be interfere with?
c) What order?
8. The First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff
claimed that he had encroached into 3 acre 20 guntas out of a
larger extent of 406 acres of forest land. Though the plaintiff
claimed that he was in possession of the property, it held that
NC: 2024:KHC-D:683
except the oral and interested testimony of PW-1 to 3 and stray
entries in EX-P1, there was no other material to show that the
plaintiff was in possession of the property. It also noticed that
the documents produced by the defendants indicated that the
suit schedule property was a forest land which was in
possession of the department of forest. Therefore, it held that
the plaintiff was unable to prove his possession over the suit
schedule property. Consequently, it dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid finding, the plaintiff is before this
Court.
9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that
the plaintiff had filed an application for regularization of his
unauthorized cultivation and that the said application is pending
consideration. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to protect his
possession against forcible dispossession. The learned counsel
therefore contended that until the application is considered, the
possession of the plaintiff deserves to be protected.
10. Having considered the submission made by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff and also perused the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
NC: 2024:KHC-D:683
Court, a perusal of the judgment of the trial court indicates that
except producing copy of the RTC for the year 1975-76 as EX-
P1, there was no document to establish that the plaintiff was in
possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff did not
produce any document to show that he had filed an application
before the competent authority seeking regularization of his
alleged unauthorized cultivation in the suit schedule property.
It is not known whether the endorsement dated 21.12.2001
(EX-P3) issued by the Tahashildar was pursuant to the alleged
application filed by the petitioner for regularization of
unauthorized cultivation. As there is no evidence on record to
establish that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit
schedule property as an unauthorized cultivator as on the date
of the suit, there is no justification to interfere with the
judgment and decree of the trial court and the first appellate
court. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on EX-P1 to
contend that the name of the plaintiff was entered in the
revenue records is of no consequence since the revenue
records for the year 1975 to 1979 and for the year 2010 to
2011 show that the property belonged to the forest
department. Therefore, a mere stray entry in EX-P1 stating
NC: 2024:KHC-D:683
that the plaintiff was unauthorizely cultivating the suit schedule
property would be of no consequence and is not sufficient to
grant a decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for
consideration in this appeal and hence the appeal is dismissed.
11. It is however open for the plaintiff to pursue any
application already filed by him before the competent authority
seeking regularization of his alleged unauthorized cultivation.
12. In view of disposal of the appeal on merits, pending
IAs, if any, also stand disposed off.
SD/-
JUDGE
PMP
CT-ASC
