- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12996 WP No. 48885 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 48885 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B S DEVARAJU S/O B R SHIVANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H V PRAVEEN GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-572 101. 4. THE DISTRICT RANGE FOREST OFFICER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-572 101. 5. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12996 WP No. 48885 of 2019 TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 214. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.A. MACHAKANUR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 17.09.2019 PASSED IN M.A.NO.04 OF 2019 BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT TURUVEKERE VIDE ANNX-A BY CONFIRMING ORDER DTD 29.07.2019 IN O.S.NO.336/2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT TURUVEKERE, WITH RESPECT TO I.A.NO.VII VIDE ANNX-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is the plaintiff in a suit in O.S.No.336/2018, on the file of the Civil Judge, Turuvekere (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') and respondent in M.A.No.04/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2019 passed in the M.A.No.04/2019. 2. The above suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction and restraining the respondent-Forest Department from interfering with the suit schedule property, on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12996 WP No. 48885 of 2019 the premise that the petitioner has purchased the said suit schedule property in terms of a registered deed of sale dated 20.10.2018 from its erstwhile owners. That that the names of the vendors and the name of the petitioner has been entered in the revenue records and that he has been in cultivation of the said land. 3. Along with the plaint, petitioner had also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, the Trial Court by order dated 29.07.2019 allowed the said application restraining the defendant No.4 and 5 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff till this disposal of the suit. As against which, respondent No.5-Range Forest Officer, preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal before the First Appellate Court in M.A.No.4/2019. The First Appellate Court by its impugned order had allowed the said appeal, setting aside the order passed by Trial Court and dismissed the application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the reasons assigned by the Trial Court at paragraph No.9 of its order while granting the interim order and also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12996 WP No. 48885 of 2019 taking this Court through the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court at paragraph No.16 of the impugned order submits that there is a consistent view taken by both the Courts regarding the right, title and interest of the petitioner. However, the First Appellate Court erred in making observation that there was violation of the grant rules and that the original grantee had not complied with the grant condition resulting in grant having been cancelled. As such, First Appellate Court erred in declining to confirm the order passed by the Trial Court. He also furnishes the photocopy of the RTC extract which stands in the name of Sri. Huchappa-the original grantee. Referring to the contents of the said document he submits that, Sri. Huchappa had been cultivating the land by growing horse gram and millets. He submits the name of said Sri. Huchappa has been reflected in both owners, possessors and cultivation columns of the said RTC for the year 1980-81 up to the year 1988-89, which continued thereafter. In the light of said documents made available, the First Appellate Court ought not to have passed the order impugned is his contention. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12996 WP No. 48885 of 2019 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Forest Department submits that the said land has been notified as a deemed forest and even if the petitioners are holding any right, title and interest the same is subject to the rights of the Forest Department. He submits that no deeds of conveyance could have been executed in respect to the forest land and any such document would not bind the Forest Department. Hence, he submits that the Trial Court first had erred in granting the interim order and the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard and perused the records. 7. Suit is one for bare injunction, the plaintiff is claiming his right, title, interest and the possession over the subject property based on the registered deed of sale dated 20.10.2018, which was executed by his predecessor in title who in turn had purchased the property from the original allottee of the land. The said land had been allotted to one Huchappa in terms of Land Grant Rules, 1969. Thus, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12996 WP No. 48885 of 2019 counsel for the petitioner, have concurred with regard to the right and the claim made by the petitioner with respect to subject property. 8. As regards the possession, though the Trial Court has held the same in favour of the petitioner, the First Appellate Court has differed with the same on the premise of the original grantee not having fulfilled the terms of the grant, had lost the grant. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has concluded that the land never belonged to original grantee and he could not have been in the possession of the subject property subsequently. 9. This aspect, even as rightly taken note of by the First Appellate Court is subject for the determination after conducting the trial of the matter. All that is required for the purpose of consideration of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is the prime-facie case to be established by the petitioner, which both the Courts have been held in his favour. The First Appellate Court has thus erred in passing of the order impugned in this petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12996 WP No. 48885 of 2019 10. This Court by order dated 01.10.2019, had directed the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the subject property, the said order is in force till date. On a query by this Court, learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter is set down for the evidence of the respondent-Forest Department. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the status-quo order granted by this Court be continued till disposal of the suit. 11. All contentions are kept open. With the above observation, petition is disposed of. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19