Dismissed

President v. Suresh S/O Ganapa Shiroor

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2024WP/100326/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash an impugned order in civil dispute regarding property title and construction. High Court observed that the petitioner must first establish title in the ongoing suit and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition to quash the impugned order was dismissed, observing the dispute has been ongoing since 1983 and the petitioner must establish title in the trial court first.

President Vs Suresh S/O Ganapa Shiroor — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2019:KHC-D:10179 WP No. 100326 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100326 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PRESIDENT GRAM PANCHAYAT, SHIRALI, SHIRALI-581354, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

¶8

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRAM PANCHAYAT, SHIRALI, SHIRALI-581354, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI.A.S.PATIL, SRI.SABEEL AHMED, AND SRI.SUHAS K.HOSAMANI, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed byYASHAVANT YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR NARAYANKAR Date: 2024.02.14 13:32:10 +0530

¶13

SURESH S/O. GANAPA SHIROOR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BERMUMANE VATARA, SHIRALI-581354. TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶14

VENKATESH S/O. GANAPA SHIROOR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BERMUMANE VATARA, SHIRALI-581354. TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

¶15

RAJESH S/O. GANAPA SHIROOR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2019:KHC-D:10179 WP No. 100326 of 2024

¶18

R/O. BERMUMANE VATARA, SHIRALI-581354. TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 05.12.2023 PASSED IN MISC. APPEAL NO.14/2022 BY THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BHATKAL AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

i) Writ of Certiorari or any other Order or Direction, quashing the impugned Order dated. 05.12.2023 passed in Misc. Appeal No.14/2022 by the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Bhatkal as per ANNEXURE-E.

¶25

ii) Issue any other appropriate Writ or order or direction which deems fit to grant by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice.

¶26

The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.14/2022 seeking for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the illegally constructed shops and further injunction restraining further construction. The Trial Court was initially pleased to order for injunction restraining

¶27

¶28

NC: 2019:KHC-D:10179 WP No. 100326 of 2024

¶29

construction. However, the First Appellate Court set aside the order passed by a Trial Court on the ground that the defendants are in possession of the property. The construction is more or less complete to an extent of 90% and earlier two suits which had been filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.13/1983 and O.S.No.63/1994 had been dismissed for non-prosecution and for default.

¶30

The petitioner is before this court contending that the property belongs to the petitioner and as such the further construction is required to be restrained. The Trial Court has observed that it is for the petitioner to establish his title over the property and thereafter in the event of such establishment, the mandatory injunction will be granted. If that be so, at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by First Appellate Court is not required to be interfered with, since initially the first suit was filed in the year 1983, the second suit in the year 1994, and the third suit has been filed in the year 2022. Thus, the dispute and litigation going on from the year 1983, it is for the petitioner-plaintiff to establish its case before the Trial Court. Even if further construction is put up, by way of mandatory injunction sought for that construction could be directed to be removed, in the event of the Petitioner-Plaintiff succeeding in the suit. In that

¶31

¶32

NC: 2019:KHC-D:10179 WP No. 100326 of 2024

¶33

view of the matter, no grounds being made out in the present petition, the petition stands dismissed.

¶34

All contentions are left open to be agitated before the Trial Court.

¶35

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

YAN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

President v. Suresh S/O Ganapa Shiroor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

President v. Suresh S/O Ganapa Shiroor

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

Smt B S Latha Vs Chief Officer

Rayeesa Banu W/O. Mohiyoddin Patel Vs the Sub Registrar

Sri. Anwar Sab S/O Allauddin Sab Chandragi Vs Sri. Mahammed Gouse S/O Mahaboobsab Zandsewale

Smt Anju Vs the State of Karnataka

Kavita Podwal Vs the Bbmp

Sri.Shivakumar S/O Chandrashekarappa Mahur Vs the Returning Officer and Tahasildar