Partly allowed

Putta v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2023WP/17365/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed writ petition in part, modifying impugned civil orders to maintain status quo on disputed land while permitting cultivation, clarifying this does not create equity pending regularization. Held that state communications showed no water tank exists.

What did the court decide?

Orders of civil court and appellate court modified to maintain status quo permitting petitioner to cultivate land without creating equity.

Putta Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40868 WP No. 17365 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17365 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

PUTTA S/O. DOOJA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT. GUJJODI HOUSE, SAVYA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574214.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY P.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.K. DISTRICT, OFFICE AT D.C OFFICE, NEAR STATE BANK, MANGALORE - 575001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K. DISTRICT, D.C. OFFICE, NEAR STATE BANK, MANGALORE - 575001.

¶13

THE TAHSILDHAR BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 574214.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:40868 WP No. 17365 of 2018

¶17

D.K. DISTRICT 574214.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. A.K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C, BELTHANGADY DATED 03.10.2017 IN O.S.NO.211/2016, VIDE ANNX-G AND THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C BELTHANGADY, DATED 30.01.2018, IN M.A.NO.13/2017 VIDE ANNX-H.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.211/2016 on the file of the Principal Civil

¶24

Judge and JMFC, Belthangady [for short, ‘ the civil Court ’]. The petitioner has called in question the civil Court’s order dated 03.10.2017 and the order dated 30.01.2018 in MA No.13/2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady [for short, ‘ the appellate Court’ ]. The civil Court has rejected the petitioner’s application for temporary

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:40868 WP No. 17365 of 2018

¶27

injunction against the respondents from interfering with his possession of the land measuring 1.10 acres in Sy.No.75/1P1 [ including Sy.No.75/1P2 ] of Savya village, Belthangady Taluk [ the subject property ], and the appellate Court has confirmed the civil Court’s order in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal in MA No.13/2017.

¶28

The petitioner has filed this suit in O.S.No.211/2016 for permanent injunction

¶29

restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession of the subject property, which is described in the plaint as schedule ‘B’ property, contending that he has been in possession of this property for over 30

¶30

years and his application in DCDR No.40/11-12 for regularization is pending consideration with the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur and that the respondents, because of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.12660/2012 and W.P.No.4975/2015, which are disposed of on 05.04.2013 and 11.06.2015

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:40868 WP No. 17365 of 2018

¶33

respectively, are trying to construct a water tank in the guise of undertaking de-silting.

¶34

The fifth respondent – the local Executive Engineer - has filed written statement stating that this Court has disposed of the writ petition in W.P.No.4975/2015 recording the undertaking given by the Government that the de-silting work in the subject property would be completed within a period of seven months, and after this disposal, tenders are invited and the contractor, who has accepted the tender, is entrusted with the work of de-silting and rejuvenation of the water tank. The other respondents viz ., the State and its officers have also filed their written statement denying the petitioner’s case that he is in possession of the subject property and that there is no water tank. These respondents have also adverted to the aforesaid writ proceedings and contempt proceedings in CCC No.543/2016.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:40868 WP No. 17365 of 2018

¶37

The civil Court has recorded that the petitioner has produced the documents to show that he is in possession of the subject property but has rejected the petitioner’s application for temporary injunction despite on the ground that the de-silting work is undertaking pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.4975/2015 and that when this Court has directed for de-silting, it would not be appropriate to grant injunction obstructing such work. The civil Court has further observed that because the subject property is poramboke land, the petitioner’s application for regularization cannot be considered favourably. It would suffice for this Court to say that the appellate Court has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against the civil Court’s order echoing the same reasons.

¶38

Ms. Archana Murthy, the learned counsel

¶39

for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is not a party to the writ proceedings and in fact, the

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:40868 WP No. 17365 of 2018

¶42

petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14163/2017 being aggrieved by the earlier orders of this Court including the order dated 11.06.2015 in W.P.No.4975/2015 and the present writ petition is filed after withdrawing the suit. The learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioner’s case for temporary injunction must be considered independent of the directions issued therein, and in the light of the petitioner’s specific case that he has been in possession in the subject property for over 30 years.

¶43

Ms. Archana Murthy also proposes to rely upon the Communication addressed by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, to the Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue to assert that the Deputy Commissioner is categorical that the subject property is not a tank and undertaking is filed before this Court in W.P.No.4975/2015 without complete information and

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:40868 WP No. 17365 of 2018

¶46

opining that it would be appropriate to initiate appropriate proceedings.

¶47

Mr. A.K.Vasanth, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, submits that there cannot be any cause against the fourth respondent because desilting work is undertaken because of this Court’s direction in W.P.No.4975/2015 and pursuant to the tender issued, and insofar as the other respondents, Sri Bopanna Belliappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first to third respondents, submits that the petitioner admittedly is in illegal possession of the subject property and therefore would not be entitled for temporary injunction.

¶48

These rival submissions are considered, and this Court must observe that whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization of possession of the subject property is a matter that must be considered by the competent authority in accordance

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:40868 WP No. 17365 of 2018

¶51

with law in the appropriate proceedings and the civil Court, for final adjudication of the present suit, will have to decide on the question whether the petitioner would be entitled for permanent injunction pending such consideration. Further, it remains indisputable in the light of the stand taken by the Government, as seen from the Communication dated 11.07.2017, that the subject property is not a water tank, and no de-silting work would be necessary.

¶52

The petitioner’s cause of action for the suit is the action taken by the respondents to commence de-silting work in the subject property which would only result in constructing a tank. This aspect must be considered not only at this stage but also at the time of final adjudication of the suit in addition to the fact that the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings either to W.P.No.12660/2013 or W.P.No.4975/2015. As prima facie case is

¶53

established, the petitioner must have some interim

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:40868 WP No. 17365 of 2018

¶56

protection because if it is ultimately concluded that the petitioner would be entitled for permanent injunction during the pendency of the application for regularization, the petitioner could be put to irreparable loss and injury if in the interregnum the nature of the subject property is altered. Similarly, the petitioner, given the admitted position that he is in unlawful possession of the subject property, cannot take advantage of any interim protection and change the nature of the subject property. The balance of convenience inter-se the petitioner and the respondents could be managed in passing suitable interim orders and hence, the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The petition is allowed in part, and

¶59

the civil Court’s order dated 03.10.2017 in

¶60

O.S.No.211/2016 and the appellate Court’s order dated 30.01.2018 in MA No.13/2017 are modified directing the petitioner and the respondents to

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:40868 WP No. 17365 of 2018

¶63

maintain status quo as regards the subject property but with the clarification that this shall not restrict the petitioner’s right to cultivate the same and such utilization of the land shall not entitle the

¶64

petitioner to claim any equity.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

SA ct:sr

Putta v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Putta v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. M S Nawaz Ahmed Vs the Bharat Petoleum Corporation Limited

M S Ramaiah Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Church of South India Trust Association

M/S Aakriti Engineers Vs M/S ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd.

M/S Shriram Vs the Deputy

Mr. Narayanaswamy Perumanna Vs Income Tax Officer

Mrs Karuturi Anitha Vs the Income Tax Officer