Karnataka High Court
Sharansiddanna S/O Sharnappa Gouda Ors vs The State Through Its Deputy Ors on 9 January, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 09Th DAY OF JANUARY 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
W.A. NO.10212-220/2011 (LB--RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Sharansiddanna Sb Sharnappa Gouda
Age: 65 years, occupation agriculture,
R/o Gola (K) Shahabad, dist: Gulbarga.
2. Gunderao S/o Sharnappa Manik
Age: 62 years, occupation agriculture,
R/o Gola (K) Shahabad, dist: Gulbarga.
3. Kaooappa Gouda Sb Amrutgrouda
Age: 52 years, occupation agriculture,
R/o Gola (K) Shahabad, dist: Gulbarga.
4. Dhareppa Sb Bhimraya
Age: 50 years, occupation agriculture,
R/o Gola (K) Shahabad, dist: Gulbarga.
5. Raju Sb Chandramappa Dharepgol
Age: 35 years, occupation agriculture,
R/o Gola (K) Shahabad, dist: Gulbarga.
6. Mahadevi W/o Charidram Darepgol
Age: 50 years, occupation agriculture,
R/o Gola (K) Shahabad, dist: Gulbarga.
2
7. Sidramappa Sb Iranna
Age 52 years occupation agneulture,
R/o Gola (K) Shahabad, dist: Gulbarga.
8. Mallikarjun Sb Iranna
Age: 52 years, occupation agriculture,
Rio Gola (K) Shahabad, dist: Gulbarga.
9. Mallikarjun Sb Hanmanthraya
Age: 50 years, occupation agriculture,
Rio Gola (K) Shahabad, dist: Gulbarga.
.APPELLANTS
(By Sri: N. Krishnacharya, Advocate)
AND
1. The State through its Deputy
Commissioner, Gulbarga.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Sedam dist Gulbarga.
3. The Katnataka Urban Infrastructure
Development Corporation, Gulbarga.
Through its Depuy Project,
Director, Veerendra Patil,
Lay-out Gulbarga.
4. The Commissioner
City Municipal Council,
Shahabad, Dist: Gulbarga.
RESPONDENTS
3
THIS W.A. IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARANATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF A LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED
7-9-2011, IN WRIT PETITION NO. 83224-83232/2011
(LB-RES).
This appeal coming on for orders this day,
N.KUMAR J., delivered the following
JUDGMENT
Appellants have preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge who has decline to entertain Writ Petition on the ground that petitioners have an alternative and effacious remedy of approaching the Civil court for the very same relief.
2. The grievance of the appellants is that they are the agriculturists and they own and possess lands bearing Sy.No.s 142, 74, 62, 73, 166, 466, 134/4, 134/1, all situated at Gola, Tq. Chittapur. The Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development 4 Corporation Gulbarga is laying pipelines in the lands belonging to them without initiating any acquisition proceedings. They have made representations to Municipal Commissioner to stop the said illegal action and for taking appropriate action. However, the Municipal commissioner has not taken any action so far. Therefore, they preferred Writ Petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Commissioner to stop the work of activities of laying pipelines in the lands of appellants. In the said Writ Petition the appellants have also sought for interim order restraining the respondents from laying any pipelines in the lands belonging to them. The appellants have made the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga, Asst. Commissioner Sedam and the Karnataka Urban infrastructure Development Corporation, Gulbarga as parties to the Writ petition.
3. The learned Single Judge after considering the aforesaid case,was of the opinion that the writ sought in 5 the nature of injunction restraining respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellants over schedule property cannot be issued. Therefore, he was of the view that the appellants have to approach the competent Civil court seeking aforesaid relief and Writ is not maintainable.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants assailing said order contends that their title is not in dispute. No acquisition proceedings are initiated and their representation is not considered. In those circumstances petitioners were justified in approaching this Court.
5. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the grievance of the appellants is that the respondents are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties of the appellants by way of laying pipelines without acquiring their lands. They have no right to lay pipelines. The question is whether pipeline is t 6 laid In the appeliants' land and whether It Is laid without acquiring their lands Is purely a question of fact which Is to be gone Into durIng trial by competent Civil court. In Writ proceedings those disputes cannot be gone Into as rightly held by the learned Single Judge that It Is purely a civil dispute and proper remedy Is to approach Civil court. We do not find any Infirmity In the order of the learned Single Judge which calls for Interference.
6. AccordIngly Writ appeal Is dismissed.
Sd! JUDGE Sd/a JUDGE MK