Disposed

Gadagayya v. the Chief Executive Officer

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024RP/200056/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a review petition filed under CPC Order 47 Rule 1 reading Section 114, clarifying that the original order did not express opinion on the merits of a concurrent civil suit.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed after clarification regarding the scope of observations in the original order.

What the court decided

Gadagayya Vs the Chief Executive Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6777 RP No. 200056 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

REVIEW PETITION No.200056 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GADAGAYYA S/O SIDDAYYA AWRAD AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶10

OCCUPATION :AGRICULTURE RESIDENT OF HUVINHALLI VILLAGE, POST BANDARWAD TQ :AFZALPUR DIST: KALABURAGI -583001

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI S S HALALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT KALABURAGI

¶17

DIST :KALABURAGI -585101

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYAT, AFZALPUR DIST :KALABURAGI 583001

¶19

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BANDARWAD GRAM PANCHAYAT BANDARWAD TQ : AFZALPUR DIST :KALABURAGI -585265

¶20

THE PRESIDENT BANDARWAD GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6777 RP No. 200056 of 2024

¶23

BANDARWAD, TQ: AFZALPUR, DIST :KALABURAGI 585265

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYT RAJ, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001

¶25

MAHANTAPPA S/O NAGAPPA SERI AGE :70 YEARS, OCCUAPTION :AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF HUVINHALLI VILLAGE, POST :BANDARWAD TQ. AFZALPUR DIST :KALABURAGI 583001

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(VIDE ORDER DATED 08.08.24, SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;

¶28

SMT.ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R5;

¶29

VIDE ORDER DATED 22.08.2024 SRI R.S.KADAGANCHI, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶30

THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC 114 OF CPC, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE REVISION PETITIONER, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND RECALL THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2024 IN WP NO.200807/2024 (LB-RES) AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6777 RP No. 200056 of 2024

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

¶37

Matter pertains to Kalaburagi Bench and is taken up at Bengaluru through video conferencing.

¶38

By consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶39

Heard Sri S.S.Halalli, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Sri R.S.Kadganchi, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

¶40

This Court by the considered Order dated 19.03.2024 allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.200807/2024. Operative portion of the writ petition reads as under:

¶41

(i) “The writ petition is allowed.

¶42

(ii) The representation in the form of appeal before the Taluka Panchayat, Afzalpur filed by the petitioner is directed to be considered by respondent No.2 in accordance with law within a period of two months from today.

¶43

(iii) In the meantime, let there be an order of status quo with regard to the position of the subject matter of the land.”

¶44

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6777 RP No. 200056 of 2024

¶45

Sri S.S.Halalli, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the observations made by this Court in paragraph 4 of the Order is being taken advantage by the other side. Paragraph 4 of the Order dated 19.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.200807/2024 reads as under:

¶46

“4. According to the petitioner, a suit is also filed in O.S.No.64/2023 on the file Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Afzalpur. In the meantime, the petitioner has made an appeal before the respondent No.2 and same is not considered by the respondent is further grievance of the petitioner.”

¶47

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the suit referred to in paragraph 4 nor on the relief that has been claimed in the suit.

¶48

Further, interim order if any that has been passed by this Court when writ petition was pending, also merges with the final order of the writ petition and parties are at liberty to advance their case after the order that has been passed by the Taluka Panchayath.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6777 RP No. 200056 of 2024

¶51

With that clarification, the review petition stands

¶52

disposed of .

¶53

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA)

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

kcm List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3

Gadagayya v. the Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Gadagayya v. the Chief Executive Officer

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

R. Gavirangappa Vs M/S Manju Ani Exports

Mr Nandakumar Krishnappa Vs Miss Jyothsna Krishnappa

R K Mangalamma Vs R K Thippeswamy

Sri Mahesha Vs Sri G H Channakeshava

Miss Rina Vitha D Souza Vs Mr a M Alwyn Pinto

K v Prasad Vs M/S Ozone Realtos Private Limited