Rajakumara Sangappa Kuppasad vs Taluka Executive Magistrate on 15 April, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Rajakumara Sangappa Kuppasad vs Taluka Executive Magistrate on 15 April, 2010

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

IN THE HEGI-I COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED TI-IIS THE Ism DAY OF APRIL, ;;..i If  _

BEF0RE;M_

CRIMINAL PETITIQN  :2 B

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHQ-K  CEINICHIGEVRIA  7

CRIMINAL 'PETITION  E2 10/ 20 IS  

IN CRL. P. NC). 7v125/20I_0-   

BETWEEN:  

1.

SR1     V

_SAN1G;A.I_5PA.:I5:Up.pASAD,. 
,S/o.LA:I'E SANGAI?PA _ 
1MA--HAN'1"1-{APPA KUPPASAD,

ASED ABQLIjIi4?..YEA,RS,
oCC__. AQRI._ " 

 " SR1 NA*I'IAE'AJAV':3ANGAPPA
'~ IKUPIPASAD@------E'.S.NATARAJ

S/.'o,LATE SANGAPPA

 E. :MAIIAI§I'r--I:IAPPA KUPPASAD,
'AcIED».ABoUT 42 YEARS,

QC'C?.__.A'GRICULTURE.

~~ SR1 MALLIKARJUNA
SANGAPPA KUPPASAD,

S /O.LATE SANGAPPA
MAHANTHAPPA KUPPASAD,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE.



SRI MABANTESHA
SANGAPPA KUPPASAD
S/O.LATE SANGAPPA
MAHANTHAPPA KUPPASAD,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE.
SRIBASAVARAJ
SANGAPPA KUPPASAD

S /O.LATE SANGAPPA _
MAHANTHAPPA I<UPPA.S'AI3,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS--,~._ 
OCC. AGRICULTURE. 

SMT.UMA T.v.'  _ ._ 
D/O. LATE SANGAPIPA  

MAHANTBAPPA KUPPASAD, 

AGED ABOUT 3;; YEARS-,_  V" 'V V'

OCC._AGRIECULT'L}RE.

SMT.--vM'§:S'.:".;RA§I ESI§IirIxR1'A"

/"O,_LATE"SANGARPA "
",MAHAN'FH.APPA'«KU-PPASAD,

AGED 'AB'O.UT 33 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE."

. 4; ' 'I SMT. "PR.EMALATI«IAJI
'  D/O. LATE .S.A1\IGAPPA

'MAHIANTHAPPA KUPPASAD,

T ~AGED 'ABOUT 38 YEARS,
'  A.G.RICULTURE.

PETAI5I'IS()NERS NO. I TO 8

1' ,. ARE RESIDING AT No.42/2,
-KINATUKARA BUILDINGS,

14??' CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE--560003,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
G.P.A. HOLDER PETITIONER
NO.1 RAJAKUMAR SANGAPPA



KU PPASAD.

9. SR1 SHIVAMALLAPPA
s /0. SHANKARAPPA
DODDAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
occ. AGRICULTURE,   _
R/O.I-1ONNAKA'I"I'IVILLAGE:, ' H
TALUK 8:. DIST. BAGALKOT.   . 

(BY sR1v.P. KULKARNI, 'ﬁ¢)\!.) '
AND: " V'

1. TALUKA EXECUTIVE
MAGISTRATE,   I  '
BAGALKOTTALUK,  V  
BAGALKOTI  .    

2. NAGA.RAJ1'}_..   .. é 
/"O;\!E:ERPiPPA'"KU--PPASAD,"
RAGE. 56-'YEARS',a._ _ '
OCC, AG_Ri.,;=.  .  " ..
R/o.HALE_PETE,_ "  "
DOOR N0.:219:_, ' 
BAGALI<:QT;' '

  . EE1'-1s';wARA§i' """ 

V.  /QLVEERAPPA KUPPASAD,

' -AGE. <%s,YEARs,

oc<'(;----_ AGRICULTURE,
 R/QLHALEPETE,

.. DOOR NO. 294,

-EIAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SR1 VINAYAKS. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1, SR1 '% .7H.M. DHAREGOND, ADV. FOR R2 as R3) . § »;;éETv£T1G--1§'ER's . V' THE CRLP. 7125/2010 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIOUNER PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PA8~S_VE.D'~.BY THE TALUK, BAGALKOT IN M.A.G./C.R./31/2O0_9--%._104"DATED; TALUKA EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, _..BAGALi{O<T 12/01/2010.

IN CRL.P. NO. 7210/2010:

BETWEEN 2

1.

' '' (BY SR1 :«_£;:M. DHAREGOND, ADV.) SR1 NAGARAJ '-

VEERAPPA KUP?A,SAD»A"' __ AGED ABOUT 56-YEAR__S,;v * occ. AGR1CULTUR1ST, _ R/O. HONNAKETTE VILLAGE', TQ. DIST'.a.BAGALKQ'If}' "

SR1     'O '
VEERAPPA KUPPASAD,

.AC}E1:)..'}*T&BOi?5T 5'2.Y~EARS';"~'- '<_0c__c. AGR.IVCULT.U'RI_ST, ; 'R/ O_.HON1'\TAKATTE,VI_LLAGE, TQ, 81; DIST. "BAGA.LKOT. * V - ' ...PETITIONERS V' vv31*HE: TALUKA EXECUTIVE) MAGISTRATE, v_BAGALKOT TALUK, O" ,. OBIAGALKOT DISTRICT. NSMT. UMA.T.V.

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SR1 MS. RAJESHWARI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

4. SR1 B. RAJAKUMARA SANGAPPA KUPPASAD, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

5. SR1 NATARAJA SANGAPPA KUPPASAD, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. A '

6. SR1 MALLIKARJUNA S SANGAPPA KU1=>PAsADj._ _V AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS*;l

7. SR1 MAHANTESHA .

SANGAPPA KUPPASAD, 1 AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. r

8. SR1 BA:SA:\]:A'_'RAJA SANG.APPAfK__UPPASAD, A AGED A.EO'u'T._35--YEAR_s'.i_ *

9. B.T§'£?{E1§/TALA'F}fIA.'G'. ' AGED ABOUT 3'?T_Y'EARS. RESPONDENTS TO 9 ARE REs1D1_Nc; AT. No.42 / 2, ;' 'KINATUKARA BUILDINGS, :1_L4TH_ cRO's«S.,_.MALLEsHwARAM, "BfAN'GALORE»55ooo3, 'vRE3?E?.E:3ENTED BY THEIR ' ~Gf;'}?.'A.VA"HOLDER RESPONDENT NO.4.

.~ ~ RESPONDENTS (BY SR1. v1NAYAK.s. KULKARNI, H.C.G.P. FOR R1, '' iSRI_V.P. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R-2 TO R--10) THE CRL.R.P. 7210/2010 IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C. A BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TALUKA EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, BAGALKOT TALUK, BAGA1_.KOT IN M.A.G./C.R/31/2009-10 DATED 12/01/2010. I * THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE WcOI5R'fi"*--»v-MjADE, ' FOLLOWING:

oRDER°u7e' Both Cr1.P. 7125/2010"L"ee,e1 7,210'/0:010: directed against the same ordcr_,V:'~dat--:§:;id by the Taluka Executive Taluk in M .A.G./C .R_.V ,-'._':v3'11';:t:':.:*1.I")_V09;£--.10% Revenue Inspector, Bagaikot it the lands standing at 56/3;_:57_!_/'_A1iiV__'1--Ionnakatte village measuring 2 acres CA'{4..,_guntaS., guntas and 7 acres 24 guntas respectively. A "

it Viiiuikarni, the learned counsel for the petitioners in-..Cr1,_P.~ 2010 submits that the respondents No. 2 and AA c1aim«:'to be the tenants in respect of the lands in question. Land Tribunal granted the occupancy rights in ftheir favour, but the same was quashed by this Court in WP. No. 4264/2003 dated 28/08/2003. The respondents No. 2 and 3 took the matter to its logical culmin.atioh._p_by filing S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25558-25559/2004 _ Supreme Court of India, but not with any--.. Thereafter the respondents No. invoking Section 7'7--A of the Karnatalca 1961. The Assistant Commissioner grantedghi 7 guntas at Sy. No. 57/ 1 to andvllretaining the remaining landsas havin:g'--be'en Government. Aggrieved l_Vi°l..slsistan;t order, dated 25/05/2on9' the the respondent Nos.2 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribuna1..V_ :_'eti§i-«:)'+--Appeal Nos.-461 / 2009 and 462/20.09 Alloy, ;h'e'l'peti.tioners and Appeal No. 528/2009 by 'A the respondent mi: and 3.

:SriAiKulkarni's grievance is that when the KAT is AA seizedpf the matter, the T haluk Executive Magistrate ought "not.-'to have passed the order appointing the Taiuk Executive __§Magistrate as the Receiver. He also submits that the order ﬁﬁéé passed by the Thaluk Executive Magistrate in the proceedings is under Section 107 of Cr.P.C.

4. He also brings to my notice «orderw.

granted by the K.A.T. on O1/O'7i=.,[2():r39.fi» '2<:;A._{r....A_'_"1a._ee stayed the vesting of the lands in theiflroi/'ernr:1ei'iIVt .exr:ept ., land granted to the respondents. itighas also directed not to issue the:'--gra--nt gsevrtiﬁcatep to the respondent No.2. i Receiver can E§eVappoiri.t.ed. only' for the purpose of harvesting. .6, Sri ljharegond, the learned counsel for petttieri;ere"' in cr1.'ﬁf7210/20 10 submits that the father of the No. 2 to 9 executed the lease deed in favour of'-the Vpetitioners. Eversince then, the petitioners have been in peaceful occupation and cultivation of all the items of the 'lands in question. He also refers to the sinking of the ____il'oorewell. The learned counsel brings to my notice the certiﬁcate issued by Venus Borewells, Ranebennur. He also refers to 'I'ahsildar's letter, wherein there is referencepitoéiispot inspection and the ﬁnding thereon by the Reveniie' _ that the petitioners' are in possession lairlds .. question. He also submits that the petitioners.7ynan:e's__ have been consistently shown inxthe cu1'tiivator'siccclpumn df tizedj record of rights in respect of alllilthei three aiterns of

7. In theghproceepdinigslp of Cr.P.C., this Court" mini trial for determining ifor ascertaining who is in posvsespsioiqvf',ol"__thVe _ Theipower under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Ais_ exceptional circumstances and in the' rarest of' the rare casexfor preventing the ﬂagrant mis- .carriage" of justice. In the instant case, it is not in dispute "that "piectiti;oners in Cr1.P. No. 7125/2010 and the pe-t_ition~ers'fin Crl.P. No. 7210/2010 are the warring parties gin the,__iiield. There is a genuine apprehension that their 'ﬁghting would disturb the law and order. The Thaluk ___§Executive Magistrate has acted on the report of the police 10 and other relevant materials in this regard. Even if it is accepted that the impugned order is bad and is con_sequ_en_tiy quashed, its net consequence would be the fight. th__e' _ two parties. Viewed in this perspective, it is"r1'ot..:des'iira'o1e jtoa. quash the impugned order. I there'§ore;_'dec1ineito"i-nter'fe.re;iri the matter.

8. It is open to eithr;r of theViip'a.r'tiAe'spor both the parties to seek appropriate int.eri,nj;-..reiiefiiirii"t:he:.'proceedings before the KAT or ;_cons;tit1ited*sLiit. It is also open to them 'to seeikiz. m¢'diﬁ:g;:ion}cf the Taluk Executive Magistrate's order._Ait"'Withi.t1"iese~.i_'vobservations, both the petitions are dispcsediof; 2 sa/-

JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court