The Executive Engineer ,Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited Vs Geeta D/O Shrishail Ganji

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6098-DB WA No. 100181 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100181 OF 2023 (GM-PP)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, G.L.B.C. DIVISION NO.1, GHATAPRABHA, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 306.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

GEETA D/O. SHRISHAIL GANJI, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRL. AND ADVOCATE, R/O. DHUPDAL VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.-591 218.

¶17

SIDRAM ALLAPPA MELAVANKI, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DHUPDAL VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 218.

¶18

YESHWANT SHETTAPPA MYAGERI, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHUPDAL VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591218.

¶19

SEVANTHA W/O. BALAPPA TALWAR, AGE. 29 YEARS,

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6098-DB WA No. 100181 of 2023

¶21

OCC. AGRL. AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DHUPDAL VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591218.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶23

THE TAHASILDAR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307.

¶24

THE SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, DHOPDAL VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI V.M. SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE, SRI M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;

¶27

SRI M.M. KHANNUR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7)

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 20.04.2022 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.100977/2021 (GM-PP) AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.100977/2021 AND ETC.,

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6098-DB WA No. 100181 of 2023

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

¶36

The present appeal is filed by the appellant/Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited¹ under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 20.04.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No.100977/2021, whereunder, the writ petition filed by the respondents questioning the order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, Sitting at Gokak, in M.A No.2/2020² is allowed and notice of eviction dated 16.11.2018 is set aside.

¶37

Heard learned counsel Sri. K. S. Patil for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. V. M. Sheelavant for learned counsel Sri. M. L. Vanti for respondents No.1 to 4 and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. M. M. Khannur for respondents No.5 to 7. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶38

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KNNL’

¶39

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Learned District Judge’

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6098-DB WA No. 100181 of 2023

¶41

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant issued a notice dated 16.11.2018 (Annexure-E) under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974³ , to respondents No.1 to 4 to vacate the premises. The respondents replied to the said notice contending that they are not in unauthorized occupation of the land in question and they claimed that they are in occupation of the said land under Hakku-patra issued by the revenue authorities in their favour. The respondents approached the learned District Judge in M.A No.2/2020 questioning the very same notice of eviction issued under Section 5 of Act of 1974. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal, against which the respondents filed W.P No.100977/2021. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order, allowed the writ petition holding that it is for the appellant to establish its right over the property by instituting appropriate proceedings and in the event of succeeding in those proceedings to take steps for eviction as may be permissible under law. Questioning the same, the appellant/KNNL preferred the present appeal.

¶42

3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘ Act of 1974’

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6098-DB WA No. 100181 of 2023

¶44

Learned counsel Sri. K. S. Patil for the appellant would contend that the respondents have admitted that they are in unauthorized occupation by placing reliance on Annexure-F application for regularization of unauthorized occupation of the respondents. Learned counsel would further submit that when no order is passed under the provisions of the Act of 1974, the respondents could not have filed appeal under Section 10 of the Act of 1974 and the learned Single Judge could not have entertained the writ petition. The learned counsel contended that since the respondents are unauthorized occupants, the appellant issued eviction notice, which is in accordance with law. Thus, he prays for allowing of the appeal.

¶45

Learned counsels for the respondents would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submit that the respondents claimed title on the basis of Hakku-patra, as such the appellant could not have issued eviction notice under the provisions of the Act of 1974. Further, learned counsels submit that when the title is in question, the learned Single Judge is justified in directing the appellant to establish its right in appropriate forum. Thus, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6098-DB WA No. 100181 of 2023

¶47

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of entire writ appeal papers, the question that arises for consideration is “w hether the learned Single Judge’s order requires interference?”

¶48

The answer to the above question would be in the ‘negative’ for the following reasons.

¶49

The respondents claimed that they are not in unauthorized occupation in the lands in question and they claim their right on the lands in question on the basis of Hakku-patra (Annexure-B) dated 25.03.2000 issued by the revenue authorities i.e., Tahasildar, Gokak. Show cause notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1974 could be issued to any persons, who are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises. When the respondents claimed that they are not in unauthorized occupation and they claim their right over the land in question based on Hakku-patra, the learned Single Judge is justified in holding that it is for the appellant to establish its right over the property by instituting appropriate proceedings. Hence, we do not find any error or irregularities in the said finding.

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6098-DB WA No. 100181 of 2023

¶52

When the respondents claimed their title over the property, the said question cannot be gone into by the competent officer under the provisions of the Act of 1974 and the competent officer cannot go into the question of title or he cannot decide the ownership of land in question. Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands rejected.

¶53

In view of disposal of writ appeal, I.A Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 would not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.

¶54

Sd/(S G PANDIT) JUDGE

¶55

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶56

PMP CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

The Executive Engineer ,Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited v. Geeta D/O Shrishail Ganji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer ,Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited v. Geeta D/O Shrishail Ganji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karanataka Industrial Area Development Vs M/S Sangamesh Sugars Limited

The Commissioner Vs Sri. Toufeeq Ahmed S/O Late M.K. Jagirdhar

The Secretary Vs Shri. Vinayak Yallappa Hongekar

The Belgaum Dist. Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt Usha Mahesh Dasar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P Nabi Rasool Vs Smt Mabina Bee