Dismissed

Gopala Poojary v. Taluuru Grama Panchayath

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2023RSA/1974/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second appeal. The appellant challenged the dismissal of a suit claiming possession, arguing the first appellate court erred by not accepting that the property belonged to the Government rather than the Panchayat. The Court found RTC entries confirmed Panchayat ownership.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC seeking to frame a substantial question of law is dismissed.

Gopala Poojary Vs Taluuru Grama Panchayath — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:28243 RSA No. 1974 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1974 OF 2017 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GOPALA POOJARY S/O GOVINDA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS MASTHIMANE, HOSAMATA THALLUR VILLAGE AND POST KUNDAPURA TALUK-574201

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHRIHARI K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

TALUURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KUNDAPUR TALUK-574201

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.08.2017 PASSED IN R.A NO.16/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:28243 RSA No. 1974 of 2017

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶21

The counsel would vehemently contend in the

¶22

second appeal that the defendant has not placed any material to show that the property belongs to the Panchayat and also contend that in terms of RTC it is mentioned as Government but not mentioned as it belongs to Panchayat and in the absence of any document to show that property belongs to Panchayat, the Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the suit. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court also committed an error in confirming the order of the Trial Court without considering the material on record. Hence, it requires interference of this Court and to frame substantial question of law.

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28243 RSA No. 1974 of 2017

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶25

appellant and also on perusal of the material on record it discloses that PW1 i.e., the appellant herein got marked the document at Ex.P1 and the same also placed before this Court and on perusal of RTC in column No.9 it is mentioned as Government that is with regard to possession is concerned and in column No.11 i.e., the rights of the parties is concerned, it is specifically mentioned as Panchayat building and it is the case of the respondent that at the time of issuing notices, the appellant had encroached the property belonging to the Panchayat, and the said notices were got marked as Ex.P2, P3, P5 and also Ex.D3 and D4.

¶26

Having perused the order of the Trial Court it

¶27

discloses that the Trial Court in detail discussed with regard to the evidence available on record and also taken note of the admission given by PW1 that he has not obtained any licence and also not made any application in writing to get the licence from the Panchayat and with an

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:28243 RSA No. 1974 of 2017

¶29

intention to get the decree to confirm his possession only, the appellant has filed the suit. The Trial Court having taken note of the admission and as well as Section 72 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act where the powers are given to the Panchayat to remove any such construction or obstruction and comes to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff is in possession while answering Issue No.1 and answered issue No.2 as negative in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved that the respondent/defendant is interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession of suit ‘A’ schedule property by trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property since the defendant has issued the notice in accordance with law and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has unauthorizedly put up an illegal structure over the public place which causing danger to the users of the public road while answering Issue No.3. When such finding is given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also on reappreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, formulated the points for consideration

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:28243 RSA No. 1974 of 2017

¶31

in the appeal and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit and the judgment of the Trial Court is not perverse.

¶32

Having perused the reasoning given by the Trial

¶33

Court and the First Appellate Court and though the counsel for the appellant contend that both the Courts have committed an error, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant in the second appeal that the respondent/defendant under the Panchayat Raj Act, has got any right to dispossess the owner of the bunk shop which is within the road margin of the State highway which belongs to the Public Works Department and admittedly, the very contention that the appellant is having a bunk shop within the road margin of State highway is not in dispute but it is contended that it belongs to Public Works Department. I have already pointed out that in column No.11 of the RTC which has been placed before the court it shows that the Panchayat

¶34

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:28243 RSA No. 1974 of 2017

¶35

is the owner of the property and only in column No.9 it is mentioned as it belongs to the State that is possession is concerned. When such material is available on record, I do not find any ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC to frame substantial questions of law and to admit the

¶36

second appeal.

¶37

In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶38

the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The appeal is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Gopala Poojary v. Taluuru Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopala Poojary v. Taluuru Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Gunapala N Vs Sri. a. Harsha v. Rai

M Vasantha Nayak Vs M Srinivasa Nayak

Rudramma Shetty Vs Amba Shetty

S. Noor Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Manoj @ Manoj Kumar G @ Bhasha Vs State by Town Ps.

Sri Krishnegowda Vs Sri Krishnegowda