- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1805 WP No. 201222 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 201222 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SHANTAMMA W/O BIMANGOUDA HOSAGOUDAR @ AMBALUR AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK, R/O DAVALAR, POST: SASABAL, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: BIJAPUR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUDHEER KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT KARYALAYA GOLAGERI, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: BIJAPUR – 586101. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER REPRESENTED BY STATE OF KARNATAKA, BIJAPUR, DIST: BIJAPUR – 586101. 3. SUBAPPA S/O KOTEPPA NAIKODI AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O DAVALAR, POST: SASABAL, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: BIJAPUR – 586128. 4. MALLAPPA S/O KOTEPPA NAIKODI AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O DAVALAR, POST: SASABAL, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: BIJAPUR – 586128. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1805 WP No. 201222 of 2021 5. SOMAPPA S/O KOTEPPANAIKODI AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O DAVALAR, POST: SASABAL, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: BIJAPUR – 586128. 6. BUTALI S/O GOLLALAPPA NAIKODI AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O DAVALAR, POS:. SASABAL, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: BIJAPUR – 586128. 7. SHANKARAPPA S/O AYYAPPA MANASUNAGI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O DAVALAR, POST: SASABAL, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: BIJAPUR – 586128. 8. DEWAPPA S/O GOLLALAPPA NAIKODI AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O DAVALAR, POST: SASABAL, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: BIJAPUR – 586128. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1, R3, R4, R5 TO R8 – SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.10.2019 PASSED IN O.S. NO.576/2014 ON I.A. NO.9 AS PER ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SINDAGI, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1805 WP No. 201222 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This petition is filed seeking prayer to quash the order dated 31.10.2019 passed in O.S.No.576/2014 on I.A.No.9 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi, wherein the petitioner’s application under Order XVI Rule 7 of CPC, came to be rejected. 2. Sri. Sudheer Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for relief of permanent injunction against the defendants on the premise that the petitioner is the owner of the suit property i.e., V.P.C.No.56 measuring 30x40 feet totally 1200 square feet of site in Davalar village granted by the Tahasildar, Sindagi under the Ashraya scheme on 06.05.1992. It is further submitted that the defendants started obstructing the plaintiff’s construction activity and tried to trespass, hence, the suit came to be filed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1805 WP No. 201222 of 2021 3. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff has filed an application i.e., I.A.No.9 under Order XVI Rule 7 of CPC seeking for summoning of the Tahasildar, Sindagi to prove the ‘Hakku Pathra’ which is marked in the evidence. However, the trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the Tahasildar is required to discharge public duty and he cannot be compelled to attend the Court and give evidence. The said finding is required to be interfered with by allowing the application. 4. Sri. Shivakumar Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 opposed the writ petition and submits that the contesting respondents have filed detailed statement of objections to the application I.A.No.9, contending that the question of allotment of site in favour of the petitioner on 06.05.1992 would not arise as their father has executed the sale deed subsequently in the year 1994. It is further submitted that the petitioner is required to prove his case based on oral and documentary evidence and not by summoning the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1805 WP No. 201222 of 2021 Tahasildar as a witness. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. The other respondents though served, there is no representation. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 6. The material available on record indicates that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming to be the owner of the suit schedule property on the premise that the said site was allotted to the petitioner under the Ashraya scheme. The suit came to be opposed by the defendants-respondents by filing the detailed written statement and during the course of evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked ‘Hakku Pathra’ dated 06.05.1992 as Ex.P2. 7. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that mere production of the documents itself is not sufficient to establish the title and possession over the site - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1805 WP No. 201222 of 2021 in question and it is required to be proved by examining the concerned officer who has issued the ‘Hakku Pathra’ so that he can depose before the Court on whether the ‘Hakku Pathra’ was issued or not. 8. I am of the considered view that the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application solely on the ground that the Tahasildar is a public authority and is required to attend the public duties. Such a finding of the trial Court is perverse. The case of the petitioner is that the Tahasildar has granted a site in question under the Ashraya Scheme and if the said Tahasildar appears before the Court and deposes with regard to the verocity of the claim made by the petitioner, it would aid the trial Court in deciding the suit. Hence, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application on technical ground. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1805 WP No. 201222 of 2021 ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 31.10.2019 passed in O.S.No.576/2019 on I.A.No.9 is set aside. iii) Consequently, I.A.No.9 filed by the petitioner is allowed. iv) The trial Court is directed to issue summons to the Tahasildar, Sindagi for the purpose of deposing evidence and thereafter, proceed with the matter in accordance with law. v) No orders as to cost. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT: PS