Karnataka High Court
Goutam S/O. Venkatesh Patil vs Yallappa Piraji Belgaonkar on 11 July, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2013
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.79787/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
GOUTAM
S/O. VENKATESH PATIL
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O. BIJAGARANI,
TQ & DIST: BELGAUM
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. : ANAND.L.SANDRIMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. YALLAPPA PIRAJI BELGAONKAR
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
2. TARACHAND MONAPPA JADHAV
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM,
3. DAMU DATTU MORE
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
:2:
TQ: BELGAUM
4. JOTIBA DONDIBA MORE
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
5. BABAN BASAPPA KAMBLE
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM.
6. SUBRAO SHANKAR NAIK
AGE: 52 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
7. RAJU KALLAPPA KAMBLE
AGE: 40 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM
8. GOVIND SIDHU KAMBLE
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM
9. MADHUKAR LAXMAN KAMBLE
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
10. SUBHAS KESHAV PATIL
AGE: 50 YEARS,
:3:
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
11. YALLAPPA TANAJI JADHAV
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
12. KALLAPPA DONDIBA ASTEKAR
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
13. VISHNU VITHAL KOLI
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
14. SHRIRANG NARAYAN BHASKAR
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
15. YESHWANT LAXMAN JADHAV
AGE: 68 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
16. SRIKANT JOTIBA ASTEKAR
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
:4:
17. PUNDALIK DAMU HALAKARNIKAR
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
18. MARUTI KALLAPPA JADHAV
AGE: 72 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
19. VASANT KRISHNA PATIL
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
20. CHIMANNA NARAYAN ASTEKAR
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
21. LAXMAN BADAKU TARIHALKAR
AGE: 78 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
22. MARUTI VITHAL JADHAV
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
23. RAMACHANDRA KRISHNA PATIL
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
:5:
TQ: BELGAUM
24. JOTIBA NINGAPPA MORE
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
25. GANAPATI SATAPPA PATIL
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
26. PANDU NAGU BHASKAR
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
27. SADANAND ANAND MORE
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
28. KALLAPPA MAHADEV ASTEKAR
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
29. WAMAN NINGAPPA BHASKAR
AGE: 75 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
30. MAHADEV NARAYAN BHASKAR
AGE: 55 YEARS,
:6:
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
31. ANAND DONDIBA ASTEKAR
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
32. BANDU LAXMAN CHANDILKAR
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
33. BHAVAKU KUMANNA BACHIKAR
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
34. DEVAPPA CHIMANNA ASTEKAR
AGE: 75 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
35. GOPAL KESHAV PATIL
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
36. YALLAPPA LAXMAN GURAV
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
:7:
37. BHUJANG DONDIBA MORE
AGE: 73 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
38. VASANT LAXMAN ASTEKAR
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
39. MANOHAR NAMADEV PATIL
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
40. BANDU SONU BHASKAR
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
41. PRABHAKAR ARJUN JADHAV
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
42. PARASHARAM RAMU TARIHALKAR
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
43. NARAYAN MAHADEV CHOUGULE
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
:8:
TQ: BELGAUM
44. JAKAPPA RAMA MORE
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
45. SHIVAJI MARUTI PATIL
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
46. ABDUL MOHAMMAD NAVAGEKAR
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
47. PUNDALIK NARAYAN JADHAV
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
48. RAJNIKANT DHONDIBA ASTEKAR
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
49. LAXMAN CHANGO ASTEKAR
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
50. TUKARAM YALLAPPA BHASKAR
AGE: 54 YEARS,
:9:
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
51. GOPAL RAMA BHASKAR
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
52. BALIRAM BHARMANNA BHASKAR
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
53. KALLAPPA BHARMANNA MORE
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE
TQ: BELGAUM
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 08/03/2013 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.462/2011 BY
THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BELGAUM, VIDE
ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY.HG. THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
: 10 :
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff questioning the order of the trial Court, whereunder application filed by the applicants under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC to come on record as defendants 3 to 55 has been allowed.
2. Heard Sri. Anand S.Sandrimani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the case papers.
3. Petitioner claiming to be unauthorised occupants of the suit schedule property has filed suit for perpetual injunction against defendants 1 and 2, contending interalia that he is in possession of the suit properties unlawfully and he has filed application before the jurisdictional authority seeking regularization of his unauthorised occupation and cultivation. It is contended that defendants attempted to interfere with : 11 : their possession and enjoyment of suit properties and as such suit for injunction have been filed against them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and not to dispossess without due process of law.
4. During the pendency of the suit, applicants, namely, respondents 1 to 53 herein filed applications under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to come on record in the pending suit, contending interalia that lands bearing RS No.202, 203, 204, 210-213, 216 and 217 are Gomal lands reserved for grazing of cattle and cutting the grass for the purpose of fodder for residents of Bijagarni village, Belguam Taluk and it is enjoyed by the entire villagers and they have a right to enjoy the lands with other adjacent lands reserved by the revenue authorities for the purposes of utilising the same to graze their cattle. They also contended that revenue records would support their contention. They further contended that : 12 : one Rukumanna Santu Kamble tried to disturb their possession from utilising the said land for the purposes of grazing and as such villagers filed a suit O.S No.100/2004, in which suit an order of injunction came to be granted and was confirmed in appeal MA No.26/2004 and as such issue of possession is already confirmed in favour of villagers. As such they contended that they intend to come on record and protect their right in the suit land since plaintiffs in the present suit have hatched a plan to grab this land. Trial Court after considering the objection filed by the plaintiff has allowed the application which is impugned in these writ petitions.
5. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the villagers have filed a suit in OS No.100/2004, which relates to the land, which is the subject matter of the present suit. An order of injunction granted by the trial Court in the said suit also came to be affirmed by : 13 : the Lower Appellate Court in M.A.No.26/2004 and the said order of injunction is operating. It is in this back ground the proposed defendants contended that they have a right in the suit land, namely, they are entitled to use the same for grazing their cattle and to cut the grass grown in the said land for being utilised as fodder to their cattle. It is also not in dispute that revenue records indicate the status of the land as Gomal and as to whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit lands, is an a issue which requires to be examined by the Court below after trial and mere issuance of a notice by the respondents - State authorities in ignorance to the order of injunction passed in OS No.100/2004 would not clothe the plaintiff a right to contend that he is in lawful possession and it has to be proved by them before trial Court. It is an issue which requires to be examined by the Trial Court. As such without expressing any opinion or view on this aspect, I am of the considered view that order passed by the trial : 14 : Court permitting the proposed respondents 3 to 55 to come on record cannot be held or construed as contrary to law or facts. These defendants are contending that an order of injunction in respect of these lands is in favour of the villagers and they also contend suit lands are being utilised by them for cattle grazing. Their presence in the suit would enable the trial Court to arrive at a just and proper conclusion. As such the order passed by the trial court cannot be found fault with.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
However, it is made clear that the trial Court without being influenced by any observation made by it in the impugned order shall examine the claim of the parties on merits and in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE *sp