Karnataka High Court
Siddappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45915-DB
WA No. 806 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SIDDAPPA
S/O JUNJANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
2. DAYANANDA NAIK
S/O CHANDRANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
3. LACHMA NAIK
S/O JUNJANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT YEREHALLI
Digitally signed by TANDYA, HADIKERE POST
SHAKAMBARI TARIKERE TALUK
Location: HIGH CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 228
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
4. BHADIYA NAIK
S/O JUNJANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS
(A) GANGI BAI
W/O BADIYA NAIK ALIAS
VEERABHADRA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT YAREHALLI TANDYA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45915-DB
WA No. 806 of 2023
(NAGARAJAPURA), TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALORE
(B). RAJAMANI BAI
W/O KEERYA NAIK
MAJOR
NAGENAHALI AMRUTHAPURA POST
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALORE
(C). KRISHNAMURTHY Y.V
S/O BADIYA NAIK ALIAS
VEERABHADRA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
NO.23, ACHARYA COLLEGE ROAD
GANAPATHI NAGAR
CHIKKABANAVARA
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE-560 090
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. BOLA VEDVYAS SHENOY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKAMANGALURU-577 101
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKAMANGALURU-577 101
4. TAHSILDAR, TARIKERE TALUK
CHICKAMANGALURU-577 228
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45915-DB
WA No. 806 of 2023
5. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT-577 228
6. SHANKARANAIKA
S/O BHIKYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O YAREHALLI TANDYA
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT-577 228
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION No.7625/2022 DATED 28.06.2023 AND ALLOW THE
WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Learned Senior Counsel Sri Dhananjay Joshi along
with learned counsel Sri Bola Vedvyas Shenoy for the
appellants, learned counsel Sri B.K.Manjunath for
respondent No.3 as well as learned Additional Government
NC: 2024:KHC:45915-DB
Advocate Smt. B.Sukanya Baliga, for respondent
Nos.1 to 5 are present.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order
dated 28.06.1988 in W.P.No.7625/2022 of the learned
Single Judge rejecting the appellants-petitioners challenge
to the orders (notices) dated 19.02.2022 (Annexure-H),
dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure-L) and order dated
19.03.2022 (Annexure-N) to re-possess the land in
question.
3. Learned Senior Counsel after arguing the
matter at length on two dates of hearing, files memo
dated 13.11.2024 seeking leave to withdraw the writ
appeal with liberty to pursue the already instituted
O.S.No.443/2022 on the file of the Civil Judge and Addl.
JMFC., Tarikere. Appellants-petitioners have also prayed
for extending the interim order passed on 18.07.2023 in
this appeal for a period of four weeks. Memo dated
13.11.2024 reads as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:45915-DB
"The undersigned counsel for the Appellants
submit that they have filed OS No.443 of 2023 for a
declaration that they are the owners of the
Schedule Property by way of adverse possession.
The said Suit is pending consideration in the Court
of the Hon'ble Civil Judge and Addl. JMFC, Tarikere.
The Appellants submit that the present
Appeal may be disposed of leaving all contentions
open and granting liberty to the Appellants to
pursue their above-mentioned Suit, subject to the
Interim Order, dated 18.07.2023 passed herein
continuing to remain in forcé for a period of four
weeks, with a direction to the Hon'ble Trial Court to
hear and pass Orders on the Appellants' / Plaintiffs'
Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, pending therein."
4. Learned counsel Sri B.K.Manjunath for
respondent No.6 opposes the prayer of the appellants-
petitioners for extension of interim order for a period four
weeks as sought in the memo, contending that 6th
respondent is in possession of the land in question.
5. Memo dated 13.11.2024 filed by the appellants
in so far as seeking leave to withdraw the appeal is
accepted and the writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
NC: 2024:KHC:45915-DB
6. Insofar as interim order is concerned, on
18.07.2023, this Court directed the parties to maintain
status-quo as regards the subject properties staying the
operation of the order impugned dated 19.02.2022
(Annexure-H) and also order dated 07.03.2022
(Annexure-L) and also the order dated 19.03.2022
(Annexure-N). In other words, the parties are directed to
maintain status-quo as regards the subject properties.
The above Interim order is operating for more than one
year. As both appellants as well as respondent No.6
claimed that they are in possession of the subject
properties, this Court rightly granted an order of
status-quo with regard to the subject properties in this
appeal.
7. In the above circumstances, the interim order
passed by this Court on 18.07.2023 shall continue for a
period of four weeks.
8. Learned counsel Sri B.K. Manjunath undertakes
to file written statement and objections to the applications
NC: 2024:KHC:45915-DB
before the trial Court in O.S.No.443/2023 within two
weeks from today. On filing of the objections within
another two weeks, the trial Court shall endeavor to
dispose of the application for interim order, if such
application is filed. While passing orders on I.A. that is
filed by the appellants, the trial Court shall not be
influenced by any observations made by this Court as well
as the interim order of status-quo.
9. With the above, the writ appeal stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
PSJ
