Karnataka High Court
Shri. Subhas S/O Sadashiv Pattanshetti vs Shri. Prabhulingeshwar Sugars And on 7 February, 2018
1
W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BEN CH
DATED THIS THE 7 T H DAY OF F EBRUA RY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS . J USTICE K.S .MUDAGAL
WRIT PETITION N OS. 100958- 959/ 2018 ( GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI SUBHAS
S/O SADASHIV PA TTANSHETTI
AGED: 35 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
2. SHRI SHIVANAND
S/O SHRISHAI L PA TTANSHETTI
AGED: 32 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
3. SHRI PRAKAS H S/ O RAMACHANDRA HABBU
AGED: 55 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
4. SHRI MOHAN S/O RAMACHANDRA HA BBU
AGED: 52 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
5. SMT.INDIRABAI D/O KESHAVVA HARI JAN
AGED: 52 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
2
W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
6. SMT.TUNGABAI W/ O LA XMAN KOLUR
AGED: 75 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
7. SMT.VENKUBAI W/ O IRA PPA KOLUR
AGED: 50 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
8. SMT.LALITABAI D/ O IRA PPA KOLUR
AGED: 30 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
9. SHRI SURESH S/ O IRAPPA NYAMAGOUDA
AGED: 32 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
10. SMT. MAHADEVI
W/O IRANAGOUDA NYAMAGOUDAR
AGED: 45 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
11. SHRI SANTOSH
S/O IRANAGOUDA NYAMAGOUDAR
AGED: 26 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
12. SMT.SAVITA
D/O IRANAGOUDA NYAMAGOUDAR
AGED: 24 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
13. SHRI SHANKARAGOUDA
S/O SUBHASGOUD A NYAMAGOUDAR
3
W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018
AGED: 40 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
14. SHRI RAJENDRA
S/O SHANKARA GOUDA NYAMAGOUDA R
AGED: 62 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
15. SMT. MAHANANDA W/O SHANTAPPA KOLLI
AGED: 42 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
16. SMT.RAJESHWARI W/O VEERANNA SI DNAL
AGED: 40 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
17. SMT.SAROJINI W/ O PRASHANT SIDN AL
AGED: 26 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
18. SHRI CHANDRAS HEKHAR
S/O SHANKARA PPA SINGARADDI
AGED: 50 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
19. SHRI SUBHASHGOUDA
S/O SHANKARGOUDA NYAMAGOUDA
AGED: 67 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
20. SHRI SANDEEP
S/O RAJENDRA NY AMAGOUDA
AGED: 22 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
4
W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018
21. SHRI GURAPPA
S/O SHANKARA PPA BANTANUR
AGED: 55 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
22. SHRI MALLA PPA
S/O SHANKARA PPA BANTANUR
AGED: 22 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
23. SHRI SHIVA PPA
S/O SHANKARA PPA BANTANUR
AGED: 50 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
24. SHRI SANTOSH S/ O NINGA PPA GANI GER
AGED: 38 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULT URE,
R/O: GA LAGA LI, T Q: BILA GI ,
DIST: BAGALK OTE.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANANT HEGDE, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SHRI PRA BHULINGESHWAR S UGARS AND
CHEMICALS LIMITED, SIDDAPUR,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALK OTE,
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SHRI RAJENDRAKUMAR S. GUDA GUN TI,
AGED: 57 YEARS , R/O: SIDDA PUR,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALK OTE.
2. SIDDAPUR DISTILLERIES LIMITED, SIDDAPUR
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALK OTE,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
SHRI MAHARUDRA YYA
5
W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018
S/O IRAYYA GHAN AKUMARMATH,
AGED: 62 YEARS , R/O: SIDDA PUR,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALK OTE.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADV OCAT E FOR SRI M C HUKKERI,
ADVOCATE, F OR C/R1 & C/R2)
THESE WRIT PETI TIONS ARE FI LED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED :27.01.2018 PASS ED BY
SENIOR CIVI L J UDGE, BI LAGI I N M.A.N O.1/ 2018 AND
M.A.NO.2/2018 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-H AND
CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORD ER ON I.A .N O.I A ND III
DATED 27.11.2017 PASS ED BY CI VIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BILAGI IN O.S .NO.82/ 2017 MARKED AT ANNEXURE- G, ETC.,.
THESE WRIT PETIT IONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DA Y, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWIN G:
ORDER
Heard.
2. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.82/2017 pending before the Prl. Civil Judge, Bilagi. The respondents filed the said suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners restraining them from obstructing in laying pipeline in suit schedule A properties.
6
W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018
3. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to hereafter with their ranks before the trial Court.
4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:
The plaintiffs are running the sugar factory within the limits of Siddapur village of Jamkhandi taluk. They required water for running their factory.
On their application dated 16.3.2016 to lift the backwater of Alamatti reservoir by laying pipeline across the lands from the said reservoir to the factory, the Tahasildar, Bilagi vide order Annexure-N dated 22.7.2016 granted permission for the project with certain conditions. As per the said order the pipelines were to be laid through the lands of around 82 farmers including the lands of the petitioners. The defendants are obstructing in laying the pipelines as 7 W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018 per the order Annexure-N. Therefore they sought decree for perpetual injunction.
5. The defendants filed the written statement as well as counter claim to the suit. In their written statement they challenged the validity of the order of the Tahasildar on the ground that, the same is violative of section 90-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. They further contended that the conditions of the order are also not fulfilled.
6. By way of the counter claim the defendants contended that unless the compensation is paid and agreements are executed, the plaintiffs cannot lay the water pipelines. They claimed declaration that the order of the Tahasildar is void, illegal etc., and permanent injunction against the plaintiffs from laying the water pipelines over their lands.
7. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1 for temporary injunction against the defendants to restrain them 8 W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018 from obstructing in laying of the pipelines by the plaintiffs. The defendants filed I.A.No.3 seeking temporary injunction against the plaintiffs restraining them from laying the water pipelines.
8. The trial Court on hearing the parties vide order Annexure-G dated 27.11.2017 granted statusquo ante order, so far it relates to the lands of the defendants on the following grounds.
(i) The Tahasildar has not fixed up the compensation amount and annual rent as contemplated under section 90-A(2)(d).
(ii) The plaintiffs have not executed the agreements as required under section 90-A(2)(f).
(iii) The order of the Tahasildar is illegal.
(iv) The possession of the lands by the defendants is admitted. Without paying the compensation, if the pipelines are laid, 9 W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018 the defendants will be put to irreparable injury.
9. The plaintiffs challenged the said order before the Senior Civil Judge, Bilagi in M.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2018. The Senior Civil Judge by the impugned order Annexure-H dated 27.1.2018 allowed the appeal, reversed the order of the trial Court. In substance the appellate Court allowed I.A.No.1 and rejected I.A.No.3 and granted temporary injunction to the plaintiffs as prayed for. Going a step further the appellate Court ordered to extend police aid to the plaintiffs in implementation of the injunction order.
10. The learned appellate Judge reversed the order on the following grounds.
(i) The trial Court has rejected the application of the plaintiffs on deciding the merits of the order of the Tahasildar which is barred by section 63 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.10
W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018
(ii) The statusquo order is an ambiguous order.
(iii) So far as the order of the Tahasildar stands, the plaintiffs have right to lay water pipelines.
11. Sri Anant Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to assail the order Annexure-G on the following grounds:
(i) The order of the trial Court is not ambiguous since the possession of the defendants is admitted and water pipelines are not yet laid.
(ii) Unless and until the order of the trial Court is perverse, arbitrary and capricious, the appellate Court cannot reverse the discretionary order of granting/refusing the injunction.
(iii) Even assuming that the Tahasildar's order enures to the benefit of the plaintiffs, unless and until the plaintiffs enter into the agreement with the 11 W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018 defendants in terms of the order, they cannot lay the pipelines.
12. Sri Ravi S. Balikai appearing for the learned counsel on record for the respondents seeks to justify the order on the following grounds.
(i) The defendants have not
challenged the order of the Tahasildar.
Therefore they cannot question the validity of the same before the Civil Judge in view of section 63.
(ii) The defendants themselves have
not come forward to execute the
agreement. Therefore they cannot say that the agreements are not entered into.
(iii) The plaintiffs have undertaken the project at a huge cost and except the defendants all other farmers have co-operated for the same. Therefore the plaintiffs have the prima facie case of right and injury to their right and irreparable injury will be caused to them if injunction is 12 W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018 not granted. Taking into consideration all these aspects the trial Court has rightly granted the injunction order.
13. It is settled principle of law that unless and until the order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is shown to be the perverse, arbitrary and capricious, the appellate Court shall not interfere with the same.
14. It is true that the plaintiffs are armed with the order Annexure-N passed by the Tahasildar which enables the plaintiffs to lay pipelines in the lands shown therein for the purpose of lifting water from Upper Krishna (Alamatti) Reservoir. However the order is coupled with some conditions.
15. In the order Annexure-N it is stated that the applicants are permitted to lay the pipelines subject to the conditions laid therein inclusive of the conditions enumerated in section 90-A of the 13 W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018 Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 and the Government order. Therefore it is clear that the order Annexure-N included the conditions mentioned in section 90-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
16. It is true that as per section 90-A(2)(d) the Tahasildar has not fixed the compensation or the annual rent. It is true that, the Civil Court is not the forum to question the validity of the order having regard to section 63 and 44 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. However section 90-A(2)(f) requires the applicant to execute an agreement in the prescribed form in favour of the neighbouring holder. Admittedly such agreements have not been executed in this case.
17. So far as the contention that the defendants have not come forward to execute the agreement, that cannot be a ground for the plaintiffs to lay the pipelines without taking proper recourse to see that the agreements are executed. If defendants are 14 W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018 refusing to join in execution of the agreements, the plaintiffs have to take action in accordance with law to get the order Annexure-N enforced against the defendants. Therefore so far the agreements are not executed, the plaintiffs have no prima facie right to lay the pipelines.
18. The trial Court, therefore, was justified in saying that the plaintiffs cannot lay the pipelines till then. The appellate Court ignored this admitted position, which is apparent on reading of Annexure-N. Even the observation of the appellate Court that the statusquo order is ambiguous is again unsustainable. Only in cases where status is unclear, statusquo order becomes ambiguous. The possession of the defendants and the plaintiffs still not laying the pipelines are admitted facts. Therefore on considering all the material on record and the submissions of the counsel, this Court finds that the appellate Court was 15 W.P.Nos.100958-959/2018 not justified in interfering with the order of statusquo. Therefore the petitions are allowed.
19. The impugned common order Annexure-H dated 27.1.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bilagi, in M.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2018 is hereby set aside. The said appeals are dismissed. The order of the trial Court Annexure-G dated 27.11.2017 passed in O.S.No.82/2017 is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-