Karnataka High Court

Mr John Lawrence Lewis vs Chanthar Grama Panchayath on 30 October, 2025

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                            -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:43506
                                                     RSA No. 1040 of 2024


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                                          BEFORE

                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1040 OF 2024 (INJ)

                   BETWEEN:

                   MR JOHN LAWRENCE LEWIS
                   AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
                   S/O LATE ANTHONY JOSEPH LEWIS
                   R/AT MATAPADY VILLAGE AND POST
                   UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576213

                                                            ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI PRASANNA V R, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.    CHANTHAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M              CHANTHAR
Location: HIGH           REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
COURT OF                 CHANTHAR VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA                BRAHMAVARA POST,
                         UDUPI TQ AND DIST-576213

                   2.    ANANTHA NAYAK
                         AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                         S/O PUTTA NAYAK
                         CHANTHAR, BRAHMAVARA
                         UDUPI TALUK-576213

                   3.    SEETHARAM HEBBAR
                         AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                         -2-
                                   NC: 2025:KHC:43506
                                RSA No. 1040 of 2024


HC-KAR




     S/O NARYANA HEBBAR
     HEBBAR HOUSE, DEVA BAILU
     CHANTHARU VILLAGE
     BRAHMAVARA
     UDUPI TALUK-576213

4.   FRANCIS D SOUZA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     S/O THOMAS D SOUZA
     CHANTHARU VILLAGE
     BRAHMAVARA
     UDUPI TALUK-576213

5.   P K NAGESH
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
     S/O KRISHNAYYA BALEGARA
     R/AT CHANTHARU VILLAGE
     BRAHMAVARA
     UDUPI TALUK-576213

6.   DEVADAS RAO
     AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
     S/O DAMODHAR RAO
     R/AT 'ADESH', CHANTHARU VILLAGE
     BRAHMAVARA
     UDUPI TALUK-576213

7.   MR PAUL DERRIL BANZ
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
     S/O LATE SIMON BANZ
     CHANTHARU VILLAGE
     BRAHMAVARA
     UDUPI TALUK-576213

8.   MRS RENNY BANZ
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     W/O MR. PAUL
     CHANTHARU VILLAGE
                           -3-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC:43506
                                  RSA No. 1040 of 2024


HC-KAR




     BRAHMAVARA
     UDUPI TALUK-576213

9.   MRS MEENA D SOUZA
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
     S/O FRANCIS D SOUZA
     'ANUSH', CHANTHARU VILLAGE
     BRAHMAVARA
     UDUPI TALUK-576213

10. MR GEORGE LEWIS
    AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
    S/O AGUSTIN D SOUZA
    CHANTHARU VILLAGE
    BRAHMAVARA
    UDUPI TALUK-576213

11. MR VINCENT ROSHAN D SOUZA
    AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
    S/O AUGUSTIN D SOUZA
    CHANTHARU VILLAGE
    BRAHMAVARA
    UDUPI TALUK-576213

12. MR. SHAILA LEWIS
    AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
    W/O SIPRIYAN LEWIS
    DEVUBAIL
    CHANTHARU VILLAGE
    BRAHMAVARA
    UDUPI TALUK-576213

13. MR VASUDEVA BHAT
    AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
    R/AT 'PANNAGA'
    DEVABAIL
    CHANTHARU VILLAGE
                          -4-
                                   NC: 2025:KHC:43506
                                RSA No. 1040 of 2024


HC-KAR




    BRAHMAVARA
    UDUPI TALUK-576213

14. MRS TRIVENI
    AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
    W/O VASUDEVA BHAT
    DEVUBAIL
    CHANTHARU VILLAGE
    BRAHMAVARA
    UDUPI TALUK-576213

15. MR CYPRIAN LEWIS
    AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
    S/O JOSEPH LEWIS
    DEVUBAIL
    CHANTHARU VILLAGE
    BRAHMAVARA
    UDUPI TALUK-576213

                                      ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC.,

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2024

PASSED IN R.A.NO.40/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, UDUPI AND ETC.


     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                              -5-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:43506
                                       RSA No. 1040 of 2024


HC-KAR




                     ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of

the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff

before the trial Court that at the first instance, suit was

filed for the relief of permanent injunction only and

subsequently, sought for the relief of mandatory

injunction. The claim of the plaintiff is that he is the owner

and in actual possession of the suit schedule property. The

plaintiff's contention is that defendant is farming road

forcibly in the plaint Item No.2 of the property. The

defendant appeared and filed the written statement

contending that Chanthar-Devubail road has been in

existence from time immemorial. It is also the contention

of the defendant that suit is suffered from non-joinder of

necessary parties. The Trial Court taking into note of the

NC: 2025:KHC:43506

HC-KAR

pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the

parties to lead their evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiff is

examined as PW1 and also examined two witnesses as

PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to

P34. On the other hand, defendants have also examined

two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and got marked the

documents at Ex.D1 to D18.

4. The Trial Court having considered the material

placed on record, answered Issue No.1 partly in the

affirmative holding that the plaintiff is in possession in

respect of the 'A' schedule property, but there exists a

road and in paragraph 19, the Trial Court taken note of

the admissions on the part of the witnesses i.e. PW1 to

PW3, particularly the evidence of PW1 wherein he

categorically admits that in his property, there was a mud

road and the vehicles and general public are also using the

same and now, black topping was done to the said road.

However, he claims that he objected the same. He also

categorically admits that prior to that he was not having

NC: 2025:KHC:43506

HC-KAR

any knowledge about the same. This admission was taken

note of by the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion that

already road was formed and plaintiff's possession is in

respect of 'A' schedule property except the road portion

and defendants also proved that road in question is in

existence in the plaint 'A' schedule property since several

years and recently black topping was also done. The Trial

Court answered Issue No.3 as affirmative holding that

defendants have proved the existence of road and made

an observation that if the property is acquired, the remedy

to the plaintiff in respect of the road portion is to claim

compensation before an appropriate authority. Hence,

dismiss the suit.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial

Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate

Court. The First Appellate Court also considering grounds

urged in the appeal as well as both oral and documentary

evidence available on record, in paragraph 37 made an

observation that evidence of PW1 and PW2 would clearly

NC: 2025:KHC:43506

HC-KAR

indicate that there exists a mud road over Item No.2 of

the suit schedule property. Hence, the formation of new

road has pleaded does not arise for consideration. In fact,

it appears that plaintiff by filing a police complaint as per

Ex.P8 on 14.01.2009 had tried to create a false cause of

action. However, Ex.P9 endorsement given by the police

would again come in the way of plaintiff's contention that

as on the date of filing of the suit, there was no such road

in existence. The First Appellate Court having considered

the material available on record comes to the conclusion

that the Civil Court cannot adjudicate upon those matters

which are within the domain of Land Acquisition Officer as

per Section 63 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. However,

made an observation that it dehors the observations of

this Court, if the appellant makes any representation

before the respondent-panchayath, the concerned

authority, then it is for the said authority to independently

examine the claim. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the

Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of

NC: 2025:KHC:43506

HC-KAR

both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before

this Court.

6. The counsel appearing for the appellant would

vehemently contend that both the Courts committed an

error in dismissing the suit for the relief of mandatory

injunction in respect of Item No.2 of the property is

concerned even though defendants failed to produce any

documentary evidence to prove the factum of acquisition

of land for farming alleged road for public purpose, having

held that Grama Panchaya has neither acquired any

property from the plaintiff's vendor nor obtained any

permission to farm any road. Hence, ought not to have

dismissed the suit. The counsel also vehemently contend

that the very reasoning given by the Trial Court and First

Appellate Court is not in proper perspective and hence,

this Court has to admit the appeal and frame the

substantive question of law.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43506

HC-KAR

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

appellant and also considering the material available on

record, it discloses that no doubt the plaintiff claims that

he is the owner of the property and property is in

existence in respect of 'A' schedule property and Item

No.2 is in Sy.No.121 to the extent 2 acres 69 guntas,

assessment Rs.2.16 paisa and relief is sought for

mandatory injunction. The Trial Court and the First

Appellate Court having considered the material and record

particularly, admission on the part of PW1 who has

categorically admitted that earlier mud road was in

existence and also in the said road, vehicles are moving

and also the same is formed as a damber road and the

said fact is taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph

19 and in paragraph 20, discussed in detail, but the Court

comes to the conclusion that the same cannot be relied

upon. However, considering the material and record,

particularly the road is in existence in 'A' schedule

property is concerned and dismissed the suit in coming to

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43506

HC-KAR

the conclusion that mandatory injunction cannot be

granted in favour of the appellant since road has already

in existence and the same is also formed and defendants

have also proved the very existence of the road and the

said admission taken note of by both the Courts. When

such concurrent finding is given and finding is also in

accordance with the evidence available on the record

particularly, admission on the part of PW1 that mud road

was in existence and the same was now formed as damber

road and the First Appellate Court taken note of the said

fact in paragraphs 37 and 38, I do not find any ground to

admit the appeal and to frame substantive questions of

law. This Court not found any perversity in the finding of

the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Under the

circumstances, the question of invoking Section 100 of

CPC does not arise.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43506

HC-KAR

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Liberty is given to the appellant to seek appropriate

remedy with regard to the compensation is concerned

since already road is formed and the same is in existence

before the appropriate authority.