Karnataka High Court
H. S. Nanjappaswamy vs Chief Secretary on 12 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10385
WP No. 36683 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 36683 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. H. S. NANJAPPASWAMY
S/O. LATE SHIVANANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O. HIREHALLY VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
H.D. KOTE TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114
2. H. S. MALLAPPA @ CHANDRU
S/O. LATE SHIVANANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O. HIREHALLY VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
H.D. KOTE TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114
Digitally 3. RAJANNA
signed by S/O. KUSAPPA,
SUVARNA T AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
SIDDAPURA VILLAGE,
Location: KASABA HOBLI,
HIGH H.D. KOTE TALKUK-571 114,
COURT OF MYSURU DISTRICT.
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.YADHUNANDAN N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10385
WP No. 36683 of 2019
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MYSURU-570 001
3. TAHASILDAR
H.D. KOTE,
H.D. KOTE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 114
4. REVENUE INSPECTOR
KASABA CIRCLE,
TALUKA OFFICE,
H.D. KOTE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 114
5. VENKATASWAMY
S/O. THAMMAIAHNAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O. ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, H.D. KOTE ATLUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 114
6. KALINGA NAIK
S/O. KALA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O. ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, H.D. KOTE ATLUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 114
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.AKASH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6
SRI.G.C.YOGISH, AGA FOR R1- R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
01.06.2019 PASSED IN MA NO.8/2019 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND GRANT INJUNCTION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS
AS PRAYED FOR IN IA NO.2 (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS IA NO.1 IN
THE ORDER OF LOWER APPELLATE COURT) IN O.S.NO.279/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, H.D.KOTE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10385
WP No. 36683 of 2019
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in M.A.No.8/2019 dated
01.06.2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, H.D.Kote., the
petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court.
2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit in O.S.No.279/2016
seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the
suit schedule property measuring 6 acres 4 guntas of land. It is
the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are interfering
with the possession and enjoyment of the property. The trial
Court by order dated 20.02.2019 had granted interim
injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant had
filed M.A.No.8/2019 and that appeal came to be allowed by
order dated 01.06.2019 which is impugned before this Court.
3. While allowing M.A.No.8/2019, the trial Court had
observed that earlier, in respect of the very same property, the
petitioners/plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.218/2006 for the relief of
permanent injunction and the said suit was dismissed holding
that the plaintiffs had not proved boundaries of the suit
schedule property and the said judgment was confirmed in
RA.No.89/2008. Further, the Court also observed that the copy
NC: 2025:KHC:10385
of the report of the surveyor produced by the 5th defendant
reveals that the land which was sought for cremation of
villagers is situated towards the southern side of Sy.No.19.
Further, the copy of the mahazar produced by the defendants
reveals that 20 guntas of allowable land is situated towards
southern side of Sy.No.90 and boundary for the said 20 guntas
of land is also shown as north by Sy.No.90 of Hirehally.
Further, the copy of the sketch prepared by the surveyor
reveals the fact of existence of 20 guntas of kharab land
towards southern side of Sy.No.90 and it belongs to Taraka
channel and the said land is claimed by the villagers of
Ankanathapura and hadi people and sought for its grant. Even
the document also discloses that towards the northern side of
20 guntas of land, the land of Sy.No.90 is situated. Further, a
certificate is issued by the gramapanchayath of Hirehally village
prima facie reveals that the Government kharab land
measuring 20 guntas is situated towards southern side of
Sy.No.90 of Hirehally and the said land which is situated in
between Taraka channel and Sy.No.90 has been using for
cremation by the villagers of Ankanathapura and the said 20
guntas does not belong to Sy.No.90. As such, the Appellate
NC: 2025:KHC:10385
Court had reversed the order of the trial Court and dismissed
the application filed for interim injunction. Against that, the
present writ petition is filed. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
had granted status quo on 19.09.2019 and the said interim
order has been extended from time to time.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs
submits that they have been enjoying the status quo order
right from the year 2019. As such, the same may be made
absolute and a direction may be granted to the trial Court to
proceed with the matter. He submits that the judgment passed
in the injunction suit has no bearing in the present suit which is
a comprehensive suit for declaration. He submits the villagers
under the guise of the said kharab land are interfering with his
land which made him to file the present suit. It is submitted
that in his 6 acres 4 guntas of land, there is no kharab land and
the kharab land is adjacent to the adjoining land of the
petitioners and under the guise of the said kharab land, they
are interfering with his land.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/
defendants submits that, in view of the status quo order
NC: 2025:KHC:10385
granted by this court, the entire villagers are put to lot of
hardship. It is submitted that they have been using the land for
the cremation purpose. It is submitted that the Appellate Court
had rightly set aside the order of the trial Court when the suit
for injunction filed by the plaintiffs in respect of the very same
land and against the very same defendants has been dismissed
and it has attained finality and the Appellate Court had
confirmed the order of the trial Court. He submits that
continuing the status quo order will cause lot of prejudice to the
defendants and the petitioners are not entitled for such relief
from this Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record. There is no dispute
about the fact that in respect of the very same property and
against the very same defendants, the petitioners have filed
suit for injunction which came to be dismissed and against that,
RA.No.89/2008 was filed and the said RA was also dismissed.
Hence, the order passed in the injunction suit has attained
finality. The trial Court had also observed that in the injunction
suit the boundaries of the property are not clear. Now, in the
suit for declaration, the I.A. that is filed by the
NC: 2025:KHC:10385
petitioners/plaintiffs is also in the similar lines. The trial Court
without considering the said fact had granted injunction.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Appellate
Court had rightly considered that the injunction suit is
dismissed and the appeal has attained finality and rightly held
that the petitioners are not entitled for injunction. Hence, this
Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered
order passed in M.A.No.8/2019. Hence, this Court is passing
the following order:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
ii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG
