Karnataka High Court
Shri Shrikant S/O Nagalingappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 October, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
W.P. NO. 104016 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI SHRIKANT S/O. NAGALINGAPPA KAYAKADH
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PURADAKERI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. TIPPUSAB S/O. KAJASAB @ JATHIGAR @ BADIGER
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PURÁDAKERI VILLAGE,TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
3. SHRI SIDAPPA S/O. VIRUPAKASHAPPA BEVINAHALLI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PURADAKERI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
4. SHRI GADIGEPPA S/O. VIRAPPA KUMBALUR
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PURADAKERI VILLAGE, TQ: HIRAKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR 5. SHARIFSAB S/O. GAJASAB @ JATHIGAR @ BADIGER
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PURADAKERI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
6. SHRI YOGESH S/O. BASAPPA KAYAKADH
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PURADAKERI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
7. SHRI UMESHAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA LOTANAVAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KIRAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2
8. SHRI HUSSAINSAB S/O. HASANSAB BELLALLI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
9. MDHAMMADSAB S/O. DIWANSAB DIVABJANAVAR
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
10. SHRI AMANULLA S/O. BUDENSAB BINNIKOD
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
11. SMT. MUBBINABHI W/O. HABIBULLA HORAKOTI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
12. SHRI SHARIFSAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB KITTUR
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
13. SHRI. MANJAPPA S/O. HOLLABASAPPA KAYATTAR
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
14. SHRI HUSSAINSAB S/O. MUNAFSAB NANDIGUDI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
15. SHRI DADASAB S/O. CHAMANSAB MAGANNUR
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
16. SHRI. TAJUSAB S/O. DIWANSAB DIWANJANAVAR
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
17. SHRI RASHIDSAB S/O VANNURSAB RATI
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE,TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
3
18. SHRI. KALANDARSAB S/O. PIRSAB KUPPELUR
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
19. SHRI CHANDPIRSAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB KUPPELUR
@ YERESHIMI
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
20. SHRI BUDDANSAB S/O. HUSSAIN KUPPELUR
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
21. SHRI FAKIRSAB S/O. JAMALSAB KOTTIHAL
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
22. SHRI IBRAHIMSAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB KOTTIHAL
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
23. SHRI HONNURSAB S/O. VANNURSAB RATI
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
24. SHRI FAKIRASAB S/O. MAHABOOBSAB PINJAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
25. SHRI TAJUDDINSAB S/O. GUDDUSAB BINNIKOD
AGE: 92 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
26. SHRI. MAHAMMADSAB S/O. CHAMANSAB MAGANNUR
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
27. SHRI ISMAILSAB S/O. JAMMALSAB HUBBALLI
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE,TQ: HIREKERUR DIST: HAVERI.
4
28. SHRI MAHANMADALI S/O. HUSSAINSAB KOTIHAL
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKABBARI VILLAGE,TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
4. THE TASHILDAR
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
5. G.M. SUGARS & ENERGY LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI Y.S. NATARAJ, AGE: 74 YEARS,
GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-09.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4,
SRI.RAGHAVENDRA KATTIMANI, ADV. FOR SRI.GURUBASAVARAJ S.M.,
ADV. FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR
DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE
COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.DC-HAV-15022(11)/259/2017-HAV-LAQ
DATED 03-02-2023 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-G AS
ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
5
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 25.09.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by in all 28 agriculturists feeling aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 03.02.2023 vide Annexure-G wherein respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner has issued a communication addressed to the jurisdictional police station to provide police protection to respondent No.5 sugar factory. The said order is under challenge.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 sugar factory.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the grounds urged in the writ petition, stand taken by respondent No.5 and the statement of objections. I have also taken cognizance of the additional documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6
4. On examining the order passed in O.S.No.89/2021, I am of the view that the order passed by respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner in directing the jurisdictional police to provide police protection to respondent No.5 sugar factory is one without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside by this court. The petitioners herein claim that Sy.No.53 measuring 332.52 guntas of Chatanalli village and the above said survey number is originally Devasthan Inam land of Srirngerimatha. In view of abolition of inam, the petitioners claim that though they are lawfully cultivating the lands in question, they failed to seek grant of occupancy rights on account of illiteracy. However, petitioners claim that they are in lawful possession and they are cultivating the lands in question.
5. It is borne out from the records that respondent No.5 has filed a suit for injunction simplictor in O.S.No.89/2021 against the present petitioners and other villagers. In the said suit, respondent No.5 filed an application 7 seeking interim injunction in respect of Sy.No.53/5A/2. The said application was strongly resisted by the present petitioners. The learned Judge having examined the rival contentions was not inclined to grant injunction in favour of respondent No.5. It is borne from the records that though an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking injunction by respondent No.5 is rejected by the trial court, respondent No.5 has not questioned the said order.
6. This court in batch of petitions while disposing of the writ petition has granted some protection to the present petitioners herein and the authorities are directed not to demolish the building and take possession of the land while disposing writ petition No.47747/2017 along with the connected batch of petitions. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.5 having filed vacating application has filed one more suit in O.S.No89/2021 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur seeking bare injunction. I have given my 8 anxious consideration to the pleadings averred in the said suit. On examining the averments in the plaint, it is clearly evident that respondent No.5 has virtually suppressed the previous litigation.
7. Now coming to the order under challenge, I am of the view that respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner though has taken cognizance of pendency of several civil suits has strangely usurped the jurisdiction of the court and has decided the possessory rights. The order under challenge does not indicate under what provisions respondent No.2 has exercised his jurisdiction in directing the jurisdictional police station to provide police protection. It is a trite law that when the civil disputes are seized before the competent civil courts, the revenue authorities should not venture into deciding the claim of the parties which are purely civil in nature. If respondent No.5 has suffered an order in O.S.No.89/2021, the remedy of respondent No.5 if any is to prefer an appeal and question the rejection of an application filed under Order 39 9 Rule 1 and 2. The law relating to providing police protection is also no more res integra. In catena of judgments, this court has held that even where a party has a benefit of an interim injunction granted by a civil court, cannot seek police protection in a mechanical manner and civil courts which have granted injunction should not normally grant police protection, unless some compelling circumstances are demonstrated and substantiated by a party who has benefit of an interim injunction. In the present case on hand, respondent No.5 having failed to get an interim injunction at the hands of the civil court, has strangely approached respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner who has no jurisdiction to grant such a protection. If respondent No.5 is aggrieved by the order passed by the court on an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.89/2021, he has efficacious remedy under Civil Procedure Code.
8. In the light of discussion made supra, the order passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner is one 10 without jurisdiction. Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner ought not to have entertained the request made by respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 in all probability cannot venture into forum shopping and by suppressing pendency of suit and rejection of injunction would not have made an application to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner seeking police protection. The material on record clearly demonstrates that respondent No.5 has deliberately chosen the forum of Deputy Commissioner to secure a favourable outcome. The order under challenge is also liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The present petitioners are asserting possessory right and their suit is pending consideration in O.S.No.32/2015. The Coordinate Bench of this court in batch of petitions has granted some protection to the petitioners pending consideration of the suits. Therefore, respondent No.5 to overcome an order passed by the competent civil court passed on an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 could not have approached 11 respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. If a competent civil court referring to prima facie material has declined to grant injunction by recording a finding that it is the petitioners who are found in possession of Sy.No.53 measuring 332.52 guntas, the impugned order vide Annexure-G passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in directing the police officer to grant police protection is one without jurisdiction. Revenue Officers do not have power on property title row and that includes disputes relating possession over immovable property. If a competent court has declined to grant temporary injunction in a pending suit, even an interlocutory order binds revenue authorities. The direction issued by respondent No.2 as per impugned endorsement vide Annexure-G has all the characteristics of appellate court reversing order of trial court rejecting application filed by petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction. Therefore, the impugned endorsement is one without jurisdiction. Respondent No.2 has entertained a civil 12 dispute and therefore has exceeded in his jurisdiction. The same is found to be patently erroneous and is liable to be set aside. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner dated 03.02.2023 vide Annexure-G is hereby set aside.
iii) All contentions are kept open.
iv) Parties are at liberty to seek adjudication of their rights in pending suits.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS