Karnataka High Court
Smt. Savitri W/O Ramu Harijan Alias ... vs The Panchayat Development Officer on 29 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10970
WP No. 103916 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 103916 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMU S/O. DASHARATH HARIJAN @ TALWAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. RAMU HARIJAN @ TALWAR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
2. KUMARI NIKITA D/O. RAMU HARIJAN @ TALWAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
3. KUMAR SAGAR
S/O. RAMU HARIJAN @ TALWAR,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/AT: KADAPATTI,
TAL: JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN PETITIONERS REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
SRI. NEELAKANTH S/O. KAVINDRA
Dharwad Bench
HARIJAN @ TALAWAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: KADAPATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587201.
4. KUMARI SOUMYA D/O. RAMU HARIJAN
@ TALAWAR, AGED 09 YEARS,
MINOR REP. PETITIONER NO.1.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, ADV. FOR
SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10970
WP No. 103916 of 2021
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENTAL OFFICER,
SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT KADAPATTI,
TAL. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587103.
2. SRI. BANGARGIRI S/O. MARUTI TALAWAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O. KADAPATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587201.
3. SHRI ONKAR @ OMKARAPPA
S/O. HARICHANDRA TALAWAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KADAPATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587201.
4. SHRI MARUTI
S/O. OMKARAPPA MAHAR @ TALAWAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KADAPATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587201.
5. SHRI MALLAPPA S/O. ARJUN TALAWAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KADAPATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587201.
6. SHRI YALLAPPA S/O. ARJUN TALAWAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KADAPATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587201.
7. SMT. NEELAWWA W/O. VASANT KAMBALE,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KADAPATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587201.
8. SMT. CHANDRAWWA
W/O. DASHARATH TALAWAR,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10970
WP No. 103916 of 2021
HC-KAR
R/O. KADAPATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587201.
9. SMT. BANGAREWWA W/O. SADASHIV KAMBLE,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KADAPATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587201.
10. SHRI GANGAPPA S/O. DHANAWANT TALAWAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. KADAPATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587201.
11. SHRI YAMANAPPA S/O. DHANAWANT TALAWAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. KADAPATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADV. FOR R2 TO R11)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR
DIRECTION AND THE SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT TO SIT AT
JAMKHANDI PASSED IN R.A.NO.58 OF 2019 DATED 16/08/2021,
COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-F, ON I.A.NO.V COPY AS PER
ANNEXURE-D AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10970
WP No. 103916 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"1) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
writ or direction and the set-aside the order passed by the
I Addl. District and Sessions Judge Bagalkot to sit at
Jamkhandi passed in R.A.No.58 of 2019 dated
16/08/2021, copy as per Annexure-F, on I.A.No.V copy as
per Annexure-D and allow the writ petition.
2) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the suit
filed by the petitioners for relief of declaration and permanent
injunction was partly decreed, however, in respect of open
space, suit came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the
petitioners preferred an appeal and in the said appeal, they filed
an application seeking direction to respondent No.7 to maintain
status-quo ante with respect to the suit schedule property
bearing VPC No.237 of Kadapatti village by removing stone at
'DE' portion as per the sketch appended to the decree. It is
submitted that if the stones are not removed from the open
space, it would affect ingress and egress of the petitioners.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10970
HC-KAR
Hence, it is appropriate to issue necessary direction to the
respondent No.7 to remove the stone slabs and provide ingress
and egress. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
3. Per contra Sri. Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents No.2 to 11 supports the impugned
order of the appellate Court and seeks to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and
meticulously perused the material available on record. I have
given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on
both sides.
5. The pleading and material available on record
indicate that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.13/2006 for a relief
of declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the suit
schedule property. The trial Court vide judgment and decree
dated 18.01.2019 partly decreed the suit declaring that the legal
heirs of the plaintiff are lawful owners of a house situated in suit
schedule property within the boundaries -"CDML" as shown in
the hand sketch map appended to the plaint. Further, injunction
was granted restraining the defendants from interfering with the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10970
HC-KAR
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The trial
Court dismissed the suit of the petitioners insofar as the open
space. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed regular appeal in
R.A.No.58/2019. In the said proceedings, he filed an application
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure and
the said application is admittedly pending adjudication. The
records indicate that without pressing the said application, the
petitioners filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure seeking interim relief against the respondent
No.7 to maintain status-quo ante on the suit schedule property
bearing VPC No.237 of Kadapatti village by removing the stones
at "DE" portion. The appellate Court rejected the said application
under the impugned order. The record further indicates that the
suit of the petitioner with regard to the open space was
dismissed and the adjudication with regard to the relief of
declaration and injunction with regard to the open space is
pending consideration before the appellate Court and until the
petitioner is declared as owner, such an application is not
maintainable. The appellate Court has also recorded the clear
finding that the hand sketch clearly indicates that an alternative
road is available through "JI" portion which can be conveniently
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10970
HC-KAR
used for ingress and egress to the constructed portion in the said
property by the appellants. When things stood thus, the
contention of the petitioners with regard to the ingress and
egress has no merit and accordingly, rejected. The appellate
Court taking note of the nature of relief sought in the application,
recorded the finding. The said findings are neither perverse nor
contrary to the material available on record calling for
interference in this petition. Accordingly, writ petition is devoid of
merits and the same is rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
RKM /CT-AN
