Vasanth S/O Maneshwar Sanu Vs Ningappa S/O Mahadevappa Malagi

NINGAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA MALAGI, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVAGIRI-YELLAPUR, NOW R/O JAYAHARA NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, MAHARAJPET, POST. KARGUDARI, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581104.

¶16

SUBHAS S/O. MAHADEVAPPA MALAGI, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVAGIRI-YELLAPUR, DISTRICT. HAVERI-581110.

¶17

SMT. SUMA W/O. RAJASHEKHAR KUDARIHAL, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVAGIRI-YELLAPUR, DISTRICT. HAVERI-581110.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5891-DB WA No. 100147 of 2025

¶20

BASAVARAJ S/O. MAHADEVAPPA MALAGI, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVAGIRI-YELLAPUR, DISTRICT. HAVERI-581110.

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581110.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581110.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, I) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2025 OF THE SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.100777/2024. II) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS PETITION, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5891-DB WA No. 100147 of 2025

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶32

The present intra-Court appeal is filed by the appellant/3^rd respondent, calling in question the order dated 20.02.2025, passed in W.P No.100777/2024. The respondents No.1 to 3 herein filed W.P No.100777/2024, calling in question the orders dated 14.12.2023 passed by the 1^st respondent/Deputy Commissioner and 21.11.2022 passed by the 2^nd respondent/Assistant Commissioner.

¶33

The relevant facts are that the respondents/writ petitioners have filed a suit in O.S No.87/2011 for declaration and injunction. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 13.03.2013, partly allowed the said suit. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein, who was arrayed as 1^st defendant in the suit, preferred RFA No.4101/2013. The petitioner had also preferred cross objection.

¶34

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 28.01.2021, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court declaring that the plaintiffs were the owners of suit property. This Court noticing that the appellant

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5891-DB WA No. 100147 of 2025

¶36

herein had purchased the suit property vide registered Sale Deed dated 09.03.2009, held that the appellant was the owner of the property. However, this Court held that the plaintiffs in the said suit were in possession of the suit property. Subsequently, the appellant has filed O.S No.13/2022 for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respondents No.1 to 4 were arrayed as defendants No.1 to 4 in the said suit. The Trial Court, vide order dated 01.02.2022, dismissed I.A No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the said suit for temporary injunction, which order was affirmed vide order dated 10.11.2022, passed in M.A No.4/2022, by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Haveri.

¶37

The respondents No.1 to 3 herein had filed the writ petition contending, inter alia, that their name should be entered in Column No.12 of the revenue records indicating that they are in possession of the property and the name of appellant/3^rd respondent should only be made in Column No.9 of the revenue records by indicating ownership.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5891-DB WA No. 100147 of 2025

¶39

The Learned Single Judge, appreciating the fact situation and noticing that in the civil proceedings the writ petitioners were held to be in possession of the property, has directed that the name of the appellant/respondent No.3 be continued in Column No.9 and that name of the petitioners be entered in Column No.12 with regard to possession. The learned Single Judge has also reserved liberty for filing of appropriate proceedings for possession.

¶40

Although it is the vehement contention of learned counsel Sri. K L. Patil appearing for the appellant that the Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 14.12.2023, noticing the pendency of civil proceedings, has ordered for the same to continue. There is no error in the order of the learned Single Judge having regard to the admitted position that, in civil proceedings, as on date, the finding with regard to possession, is in favour of the writ petitioners.

¶41

The order of the learned Single Judge with regard to entry of name of the writ petitioners in Column No.12 is subject to the result of civil proceedings for appropriate relief.

¶42