Karnataka High Court
Keshavarao S/O Swamirao Kulkarni vs Deputy Commissioner, Koppal on 20 March, 2023
-1-
WP No.102347 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.102347 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. KESHAVARAO S/O. SWAMIRAO KULKARNI
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
2. MADHAVARAO S/O. SWAMIRAO KULKARNI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. KAVERIPURAM, KAMALAXIPALYA,
BENGALURU-560079.
3. VENKATESH S/O. SWAMIRAO KULKARNI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM,
MYSORE-570004.
JAGADISH
4. GOPALKRISHNA S/O. SWAMIRAO KULKARNI
TR AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by
JAGADISH T R
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
5. MANJEPPA ALIAS MANJUNATH
S/O. SHYAMANNA ARERA
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
6. SHAMANNA S/O. HANAMAPPA ARERA
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
-2-
WP No.102347 of 2021
7. NINGAMMA W/O. YANKAPPA ARERA
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
8. BHIMOJI S/O. GOSOMAPPA ARERA
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
9. AMBAJAPPA S/O. AYAPPA ARERA
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
10. SHAMANNA S/O. PARASAPPA ARERA
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
11. TIRUPATHI S/O. BHARAMAPPA
DUMATI ALIAS KUPPIGUDDA
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
12. DYAMAPPA ALIAS DYAMANNA S/O. TAMMANEPPA
DASANUR ALIAS GOLLAR
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
13. SHAMID KHAN S/O. BAYALUL KHAN PATAN
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
14. AMMEDKHAN S/O. MISHRAKHAN PATAN
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
15. SAMA B KHATUM W/O. SHAMIDKHAN PATAN
AGE:59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-3-
WP No.102347 of 2021
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583277.
16. KRISHNAPPA S/O. SHYAMANNA ARERA
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
17. SARDARKHAN S/O. HAMIDKHAN PATAN
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAVARAGERA, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ROHIT S PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL
R/O. D. C. OFFICE AT KOPPAL
TAL. DIST. KOPPAL-583277.
2. C.E.O. OF Z.P. OFFICE AT KOPPAL
R/O. D.C. OFFICE AT KOPPAL-583277.
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FOR P.M. RURAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KOPPAL, R/O. KINNAL ROAD,
KOPPAL-583277.
4. TAHASILDAR KUSHTAGI
R/O. KUSTAGI, TAL: KUSTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583277.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIY PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONERS BY
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN MA NO.6/2020 BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE KUSTAGI DT. 1/06/2020 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER ON THE FILE OF
ADDLN CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUSHTAGI ON IA NO.3 IN OS N
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
WP No.102347 of 2021
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs questioning the concurrent findings of the Courts below on an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. Both the Courts have declined to grant interim injunction.
2. The Court of first instance as well as the Appellate Court while examining prima facie materials have taken cognizance of the fact that the State has invested more than Rs.2.00 Crore in laying a new road on the existing road, which is in a larger interest of public. Therefore, both the Courts are of the view that huge public money is invested for developmental activities and therefore the Courts have declined to grant interim injunction. These concurrent orders are under challenge.
3. Referring to prima facie materials, both the Courts have taken cognizance of the fact that the state by investing huge amount has undertaken the re-laying of new road and after securing proper approval from the concerned department, the process of forming a new road with estimated cost of Rs.2.00 Crore is undertaken. If these significance details are looked into, then this Court is -5- WP No.102347 of 2021 of the view that, both the Courts are justified in declining to grant interim injunction. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent orders rendered by both the Courts below. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
4. However, it is made clear that any observation made by both the Courts and reasons recorded while deciding the interim application filed under Order XXXIX of CPC should be confined only to the disposal of the application. Further it is made clear that all the contentions are kept open. The reliefs sought by the plaintiffs have to be independently examined after full fledged trial without getting influenced any of the observations made herein above. The Trial Court shall decided the case independently after examining the pleadings and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence led in by both the parties.
SD/-
JUDGE EM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7