Karnataka High Court
Neelavathi vs District Commissioner on 5 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44835
RSA No. 1025 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1025 OF 2023 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
NEELAVATHI
D/O BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O CHANNAPATNA
HASSAN - 573 201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. OMKAR BASAVA PRABHU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN - 573 102
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
2. THE TAHSILDAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HASSAN TALUK
KARNATAKA HASSAN - 573 102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S.H, AGA)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.08.2022
PASSED IN RA NO.40/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HASSAN, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44835
RSA No. 1025 of 2023
HC-KAR
DATED 24.11.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.542/2016 ON THE FILE
OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASAN.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the
learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The appeal is listed for admission.
3. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.
The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute
owner and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
shall property. It is contented that suit sale property originally
belongs to government and one Veeranna, son of Rachatappa,
purchased the suit schedule property in public auction on
27.06.1983 for a consideration of Rs.200/- to an extent of 30 x
40 feet, bearing Site No. 574/1 through sale deed from
Channapatna Grama Panchayath. Later, he sold the house to
plaintiff Neelavathi through registered sale deed dated
14.08.2003 for a consideration of Rs.2,02,000/-. The extent of
the house is 20x30 feet. Remaining measurement of the site is
NC: 2025:KHC:44835
HC-KAR
30x20 feet out of 30x40 feet. It is also known to the
defendants that Mandal Panchayat sold in public auction. Social
property is purchased from Mandal Panchayat. Defendants have
no authority to interfere in the suit schedule property.
4. The defendants appeared and filed written
statement that is defendant No.2 adopted the written
statement of defendant No.1. Defendants denied the entire
averment of plaint even including the denying of the title and
the defendants contend that Grama Panchayath has no
authority to auction the suit schedule property and permission
of Deputy Commissioner was necessary for government land
for disposing the same and grama panchayat has not taken any
such permission and also the plaintiff is not the absolute owner
of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff is not in possession of
the suit schedule property; Government is in possession of the
suit schedule property. It is also contented that it is not within
the knowledge of the defendants that public auction was
conducted. It is the duty of the government to protect the
government land for the public purpose.
NC: 2025:KHC:44835
HC-KAR
5. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and that marked
documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and defendants have not led any
evidence. However, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that
plaintiff has not proved the possession and also made an
observation in the order that when there is a dispute with
regard to the title is concerned and when the title is in dispute
or under cloud, question of granting the exemption does not
arise and hence, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the
dismissal of the suit an appeal is filed in R.A.No.40 of 2019 and
appellate court also on re-appreciation of both oral and
documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that plaintiff
has failed to prove his possession as well as interference by the
defendant and also considering the judgment in the case of
T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY VERSUS MALLAPPA AND
ANOTHER1 and also the judgment reported in JHARKHAND
STATE HOUSING BOARD VS. DIDAR SINGH2, in para 26
made an observation that on perusal of the dictum laid on in
the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that where plaintiff's title is
2021 (5) KCCR 1 (SC)
(2019) 17 SCC 692
NC: 2025:KHC:44835
HC-KAR
in dispute or under a cloud, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit
simplicitor for the relief of permanent injunction.
6. In the instant case, defendant has categorically
denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property
and stated that plaintiff is in unlawful possession over the suit
schedule property. Therefore, though the plaintiff has proved
his possession over the suit schedule property, his possession
being unlawful is not entitled for the relief of permanent
injunction and answered the point as negative.
7. Having considered the reasoning given by the trial
Court as well as the appellate Court learned counsel would
vehemently contend in his argument in second appeal that both
the courts have committed an error when the plaintiff has
established the possession and ought not to have dismissed the
suit and ought not to have confirmed by the appellant Court
and hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame
substantive question of law.
8. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the State
would vehemently contend that when the defendants have filed
NC: 2025:KHC:44835
HC-KAR
the written statement and disputed the title and contend that
the Grama Panchayath had no any right to dispose of the
property, the very title is disputed and hence, both the courts
have taken note of the same and dismissed the suit as well as
appeal.
9. Having heard the appellant counsel and also the
counsel appearing for the respondent and also considering the
pleadings of the plaintiff, plaintiff claims that property originally
belongs to the government and the same was auctioned and
vendor of the plaintiff had purchased the same and the same is
disputed by the defendant by filing statement contending that
the property belongs to the government and Grama Panchayath
was not having any authority to sell the property without the
permission of the Deputy Commissioner and title is also
disputed. When there is a cloud on the title, in view of the
judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Ananthula Sudhakar
as well as the judgment which have been referred by the
appellate court referred supra, the plaintiff ought to have
sought for the relief of comprehensive relief of declaration and
the same is not sought and hence, I do not find any ground to
NC: 2025:KHC:44835
HC-KAR
admit and frame substantive question of law. However, the
appellant is given liberty to seek appropriate relief of
comprehensive relief of declaration.
With this observation, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SS
