- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11025 WP No. 47672 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 47672 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MALLADA KOTRAPPA S/O ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST R/O ITTIGUDI BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131. 2. SRI D SHIVANANDAPPA S/O LATE ADIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST R/O ITTINAGUDI BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131. 3. SRI D KOTRAPPA S/O LATE ADIVAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT D SHOBHA W/O LATE D KOTRAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST R/O ITTINAGUDI BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11025 WP No. 47672 of 2018 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131. 4. D BASAVARAJA S/O LATE D KOTRAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST R/O ITTINAGUDI BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131. 5. SMT SHAKUNTHALA D/O LATE D KOTRAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GURURAJ R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-01 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE CITY DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 002. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HARAPANAHALLI SUB DIVISION MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131. 4. THE TAHSILDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11025 WP No. 47672 of 2018 HARAPANAHALLI TALUK OFFICE MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131. 5. THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR HALAVAGALU POLICE STATION HALAVAGALU VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131. 6. DODDAMANI BASAVARAJAPPA S/O KOTRAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST R/O ITTINAGUDI BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131. 7. B RUDRASWAMY S/O MUREGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST & BUSINESS R/O CHOWKIPETE DAVANAGERE CITY-577 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI , AGA FOR R1 TO R5 SRI. S.B. PAVIN, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2018 PASSED IN M.A.NO. 12/2016 ON THE FILE OF SR. CIVIL JUDGE AT JMFC AT HARAPANAHALLI VIDE ANEX- G AND ORDER DATED 11.07.2018 PASSED IN M.A.NO. 13/2016 ON THE FILE OF SR. CIVIL JUDGE AT JMFC AT HARAPANAHALLI VIDE ANNEX-H RESPECTIVELY CONFIRMING THE COMMON ORDER DATED 11.08.2016 PASSED ON I.A.NO. III AND I.A.NO. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11025 WP No. 47672 of 2018 IV IN O.S.NO.76/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HARAPANAHALLI VIDE ANNEX-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Plaintiffs/petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.76/2013 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Harappanahalli (for short 'Trial Court') are before this Court being aggrieved by the common order dated 11.08.2016 passed by the Trial Court on I.A.Nos.III and IV filed by the plaintiffs and defendant No.6 respectively which is confirmed by order dated 30.07.2018 in M.A.No.12/2016 and the order dated 11.07.2018 in M.A.No.13/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harappanahalli, (for short 'First Appellate Court'). 2. The above suit in O.S.No.76/2013 is filed by the plaintiffs/petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for relief of permanent injunction claiming to be the lessee under one Shri. Maganahalli Basappa who is the grandfather of the defendant No.7. Defendants 6 and 7 on the other hand claim their right over the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11025 WP No. 47672 of 2018 suit property having been conferred with the occupancy rights under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, 1961. 3. In the above suit, plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.III under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking ad-interim injunction order against the defendants and defendant No.6 has also filed an application in I.A.No.IV under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking ad-interim injunction order against the plaintiffs. 4. That on 11.08.2016 Trial Court taking note of the contentions of the parties dismissed application of the plaintiffs and allowed the application of the defendant No.6 restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the enjoyment of the property by the defendants. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred miscellaneous appeals in M.A.No.12/2016 and M.A No.13/2016. By orders dated 30.07.2018 and 11.07.2018 respectively the First Appellate Court dismissed the said appeals and confirmed the order dated 11.08.2016 passed by the Trial Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11025 WP No. 47672 of 2018 6. It is submitted that both plaintiff/petitioner No.1 and defendant No.6 passed away and no legal representatives are brought on record. 7. Heard. Perused the records. 8. Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on perusal of record have found that defendant No. 6 was issued with Form No.10 confirming the occupancy rights in respect of the suit schedule property by Land Tribunal vide order dated 28.03.2012 and required formality in the nature of payment of premium to the Government has been complied with. Whereas the plaintiffs have produced the records of right of the year 2012-13 which reflected the name of one Maganahalli Basappa none other than the father of the defendant No.7. 9. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently found plaintiffs not producing any document regarding they being in possession of suit schedule property. That Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have also referred to the writ petitions in W.P.No.16795/2012 and W.P.No.17083- 84/2012 filed by the plaintiffs which are resulted in dismissal. Taking note of these aspect of the matter Trial Court and the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11025 WP No. 47672 of 2018 First Appellate Court have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had not established prima facie case for consideration of grant of ad-interim order, while on the other hand the defendants had indeed made out a prime facie case. Accordingly, allowed their application and rejected the case of the plaintiffs. 10. This Court do not see any error, irregularity or illegality while passing the orders by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Petition lacks merit. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. The Order dated 11.08.2016 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.76/2013 and the order dated 30.07.2018 passed in M.A.No.12/2016 and order dated 11.07.2018 passed in M.A.No.13/2016 by First Appellate Court are confirmed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28