- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15563 WP No. 24057 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 24057 OF 2022 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI T R VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NUKKANAHALLI HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 102 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI DHEEMANTHIKA GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101 Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15563 WP No. 24057 of 2022 3. THE PRIMARY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER THORADEVANDAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH HUTUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 102 4. SRI. H N MUNIREDDY S/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 5. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 6. SRI. MAHENDRA S/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRs: 6(A) SMT. NEELAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY R/AT NUKKANAHALLI KOLAR - 563 126. 6(B) SMT. BHARATHI M.G., W/O N. MAHENDRA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NUKKANAHALLI, KOLAR - 563 126 RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NUKKANAHALLI HOLUR HOBLI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15563 WP No. 24057 of 2022 KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 102. … RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. YOGANNA K.P., AGA FOR R1; SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B.N. SURESH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI S. PRAKASH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; SRI S. LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R6(A & B)] THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.03.2021 PASSED IN NO.G.P APPEAL NO.3/2020 AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 17.03.2021 at Annexure-'J' in Appeal No.3/2020. The order at Annexure-'J' is passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kolar in an appeal filed by the private respondents who have challenged the mutation in M.R.No.3/1994-95 standing in the name of the petitioner herein. The said appeal came to be disposed off setting aside the mutation making an observation regarding the road stated to be situated on the Eastern - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15563 WP No. 24057 of 2022 side of the property and observations were also made regarding the removal of obstructions on the said road. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an agreement holder from the original vendor and a suit came to be filed in O.S.No.560/1989 by a purchaser from the petitioner's vendor. It is submitted that there was litigation at the instance of said purchaser and the said suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction came to be dismissed. It is specifically asserted that amongst the issues framed in the said suit, Issue No.7 was framed as regards the contention that the present petitioner who was a defendant had perfected the title by way of adverse possession. It is submitted that as regards such issue, there was a finding in favor of the petitioner of having perfected adverse possession as regards the property with respect to which the present proceedings relate. 3. Sri K.N.Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15563 WP No. 24057 of 2022 petitioner had challenged M.R.No.4/2011-12 standing in the name of private respondent No.4 in Appeal No. 13/2011-12 before the Executive Officer, Kolar and the said appeal came to be allowed on 28.08.2019 setting aside the mutation in favour of respondent No.4 and such order has attained finality and has not been challenged. 4. It is further submitted that O.S.No.49/2017 was pending between the parties initiated by the private respondents in the present petition in which the prayer sought for was with respect to the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction. It is further submitted that the said suit has been dismissed and that in the said suit, the Government of Karnataka, represented by Chief Secretary, Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kolar, PDO, Thoradevandahalli Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk as well as the petitioner were arrayed as defendants. It is specifically submitted that there was an issue with respect to the complainant, i.e. the respondent herein having proved that suit schedule properties are public roads and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15563 WP No. 24057 of 2022 as regards findings with respect to the said issue, the finding in the negative was recorded. It is submitted that as on date, there is no order of stay that supercedes the judgments and decree passed in O.S.No.49/2017. 5. Accordingly it is submitted that the order in appeal at Annexure-'J' which was passed taking note of the pendency of O.S.No.49/2017 requires to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Grama Panchayat has filed detailed statement of objections. It is submitted that that the matter is not merely one of mutation between the petitioner and the private respondents, but also relates to a public road and any order passed as regards the order at Annexure-'J' ought not to prejudice the rights relating to public road in which the residents of the Village have a right. 7. Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.176/2021 for - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15563 WP No. 24057 of 2022 declaration, which however has been withdrawn subsequent to the passing of judgment and decree in O.S.No.49/2017 during the pendency of the present petition. 8. Heard both sides. 9. At the outset, it must be noticed that the mutation as regards the private respondents in M.R. No.4/2011-2012 came to be set aside by virtue of the order passed in R.A.No.13/2011-2012. Admittedly, the said order has attained finality. 10. It is at the instance of the very private respondents that mutation entries as regards the petitioner has been challenged and set aside as per the order passed at Annexure-'J'. 11. A perusal of the order at Annexure-'J' would indicate that the Authority had kept in mind the proceedings in O.S.No.49/2017 and noticed the pendency of the said suit. It must be noticed that while setting - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15563 WP No. 24057 of 2022 aside M.R.No.3/94-95 standing in the name of the petitioner herein as per the order at Annexure-'J', observations were made regarding the public road as well. 12. It must be noticed that the revenue proceedings cannot supercede the findings before the Civil Courts which is a settled position of law. 13. Insofar as suit in O.S.No.560/1989 filed by one Lakshminarasimhaiah against the petitioner herein was disposed off and such suit was filed seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. 14. As noticed in the contentions raised, there was a specific issue framed relating to perfection of title by the petitioner herein by way of adverse position. The issue No.7 to the said suit reads as hereunder:- "Whether the defendant proves that he has perfected his title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession?" - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15563 WP No. 24057 of 2022 15. A perusal of the judgment in O.S.No.560/1989 at Annexure-'B' would clearly indicate affirmative finding as regards Issue No.7 in favor of the petitioner herein. The suit for declaration would operate as judgment in rem though all of the litigants were not parties in the said suit. Even otherwise, for the limited purpose of present proceedings, it can be taken that due weightage must be given to the observations made on Issue No. 7 in favour of the petitioner in O.S.No.560/1989. 16. It is to be noticed that O.S.No.49/2017 is a suit pending between the parties, i.e. the petitioner herein as well as the private respondents. In the said suit, State of Karnataka represented by Chief Secretary, Executive Officer Taluk Panchayat, Kolar, PDO, Thoradevanahalli Grama Panchayat, Hutur Hobli, Kolar Taluk and the petitioner were arrayed as defendants. The suit was for relief of declaration and mandatory injunction. The issues framed in the said suit also relates to the road that was adverted to on behalf of respondents. The issue as to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15563 WP No. 24057 of 2022 whether the plaintiffs in the said suit proved that suit schedule property is a road was held in the negative and the said suit is disposed off. 17. Insofar as the validity of the order in appeal filed challenging the mutation entry of the petitioner herein, it can be stated that the judgment rendered in O.S.49/2017, for the present, has put an end to the claim between the petitioner and the private respondents. 18. Taking note of the observations made at Annexure-'J', the order of the Appellate Authority had clearly referred to the pending suit, i.e. O.S.No.49/2017. In light of disposal of O.S.No.49/2017 in favour of the petitioner, it can be stated that the findings and observations made in O.S.No.49/2017 need to be taken note of and accordingly, the order at Annexure-'J' is liable to be set aside taking note of the disposal of O.S.No.49/2017. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15563 WP No. 24057 of 2022 19. Insofar as the contention relating to public road, all that can be stated is that apart from the observations made in the various legal proceedings referred to above, if there is any other right relating to public road, the same can be agitated before the appropriate Authority as permissible in law, while taking note of the findings already made between the parties in the legal proceedings referred to above. It is clarified that the proceedings relating to the mutation that was in issue and observations regarding other aspects must not be taken to be a conclusive finding. The observations made are limited to the disposal of the dispute relating to the mutation entry and should not be construed to be otherwise. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR