- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2405 RSA No. 7361 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.7361 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. RAMACHANDER @ BABU EKHELLIKER S/O SANGRAMAPPA AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VILLAGE HOOGERI, (HALADKERI-J), TQ & DIST: BIDAR. 2. BASLINGAPPA S/O REVAPPA BAMANDI AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: VILLAGE HOOGERI, (HALADKERI-J), TQ & DIST: BIDAR. 3. SHIVRAJ S/O VEERBHADRAPPA AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER IN GND POLYTECHNIC, R/O: VILLAGE HOOGERI, (HALADKERI-J), TQ & DIST: BIDAR. 4. MANIKRAO @ MANIKAPPA S/O BASAPPA KORI AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, R/O: VILLAGE HOOGERI, (HALADKERI-J), TQ & DIST: BIDAR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.M.GHATE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2405 RSA No. 7361 of 2012 AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 590 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BIDAR, DIST. BIDAR – 585 401. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS (TAHSILDAR) BIDAR – 585 401. 4. SYED AZMATHULLAH QUADRI S/O SYED HUSSAIN QUADRI, AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: QAZIPURA BIDAR – 585 401. 5. SYED MOHAMMED QUADRI S/O SYED HUSSAIN QUADRI, AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: QAZIPURA BIDAR – 585 401. 6. KANTEPPA S/O BANDEPPA AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HALLADKERI – J, TQ: BIDAR – 585 401. 7. BASVA S/O SANGAPPA AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HALLADKERI–J, TQ: BIDAR – 585 401. 8. SUBHASH S/O BASAPPA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2405 RSA No. 7361 of 2012 AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HALLADKERI – J, TQ: BIDAR – 585 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SMT. MAYA T.R., H.C.G.P. FOR R1; SRI R.S.SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5; R2, R3, R6 – ARE SERVED V/O DATED 12.03.2025 NOTICE TO R7 AND R8 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL ADN SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.60/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BIDAR, DATED 30TH AUGUST 2012 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15TH JULY 2010 IN O.S.NO.211/1999 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.), AT BIDAR MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND THEREBY PLEASE TO DECREE THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS AS PRAYED FOR THROUGHOUT COST TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2405 RSA No. 7361 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This second appeal is arising from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.211/1999 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Bidar and also judgment and decree in R.A.No.60/2010 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bidar. 2. The suit is dismissed so also the appeal. The plaintiffs are in second appeal. 3. Plaintiffs have filed the suit in a representative capacity by invoking the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1980 (for short, ‘the Code’). 4. The plaintiffs claim that the suit properties are the public properties and they seek injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the public. 5. There are three properties described in the schedule, namely Sy.No.130, measuring 04 acres 13 guntas, Sy.No.12 measuring 03 acres 24 guntas and the third property is land bearing Sy.No.11 measuring 02 acres 08 guntas, all situated in Haladkeri-Jvillage, Bidar taluk. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2405 RSA No. 7361 of 2012 6. Defendants No.6 to 9 remained ex parte before the trial Court. 7. The suit property bearing Sy.No.11 stands in the name of defendants No.9 and 10. The suit property bearing Sy.No.12 stands in the name of defendants No.6 to 8. The suit property bearing Sy.No.130, measuring 04 acres 13 guntas stands in the name of defendants No.4 and 5. 8. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the premise that there is no paper publication taken by the plaintiffs despite an order passed on an application under Order I Rule 8 of the Code. In addition to that, the trial Court has considered the case on merit and has dismissed the suit on the premise that the plaintiffs are unable to establish that the suit properties are the properties in which the public have right. 9. The first appellate Court has agreed the finding of the trial Court and has dismissed the appeal. 10. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this appeal. i) Whether the trial Court and the first appellate Court were justified in dismissing the suit on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2405 RSA No. 7361 of 2012 the premise that the paper publication is not taken pursuant to an order on application filed under Order I Rule 8 of the Code? ii) Whether the appellants establish that the suit properties are the Government properties meant for public use? 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants would submit that the plaintiffs are interested in prosecuting the proceeding only in respect of two temples namely, Bhagyavanthi Devalaya and Naganath Devalaya located in the suit properties. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5 would submit that aforementioned two temples are not located in Sy.No.130 which is re-granted to respondents No.4 and 5. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants would submit that the aforementioned two temples are located in Sy.No.130. As a reply, the learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5 would submit that those temples may be located in Sy.Nos.11 and 12. 14. In that event, the subject matter of the dispute gets reduced to lesser extent. As of now, the suit is filed in respect of three properties namely, Sy.Nos.11, 12 and 130. The land - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2405 RSA No. 7361 of 2012 Sy.No.11 measures 02 acres 08 guntas, Sy.No.12 measures 03 acres 24 guntas and Sy.No.130, measures 04 acres 13 guntas. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants on instructions would submit that the extent of land covered by the temples would cover approximately half acre. 16. Under these circumstances, also noticing the fact that there was no publication of notice as required under Order I Rule 8 of the Code, the plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the suit and permitted to file a fresh suit in respect of two temples referred to above. 17. This Court has not given any opinion as to the location of the temples referred to above with reference to survey number. The same shall be decided after surveying the property in which the aforementioned temples are located 18. In case the plaintiffs file an application (before filing fresh suit) before the jurisdictional Surveyor for survey of the properties, to identify the survey number in which the aforementioned two temples are located, the concerned Surveyor shall survey the property as contemplated under law with due notice to the adjacent owners and shall furnish report - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2405 RSA No. 7361 of 2012 to the plaintiffs within four months from the date of the application for survey. 19. Since submission is made that the plaintiffs will be filing a fresh suit in respect of two temples referred to above by withdrawing the suit in O.S.No.211/1999 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Bidar the substantial questions of law do not survive for consideration. 20. The plaintiffs’ suit in O.S.No.211/1999 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Bidar is treated as withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh suit in respect of two temples referred to above. 21. In case fresh suit is filed in respect of two temples referred to above same shall be decided in accordance with law. 22. With these observations, the aforementioned appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48