- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1312 RP No. 200055 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REVIEW PETITION NO.200055 OF 2024 BETWEEN: GURUNATH S/O MANIKAPPA KOLLUR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND CONTRACTOR, R/O A-6-89/1, J.P. NAGAR, JANWADA ROAD, BIDAR-585 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BIDAR-585 401. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, BIDAR-585 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AAG & SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; R2-SERVED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.04.2024 PASSED IN R.S.A. NO.7143/2013 BY THIS HON’BLE Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1312 RP No. 200055 of 2024 COURT AND TO PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS DEEMED NECESSARY IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1. 2. The present review petition is filed, seeking review of the judgment of this Court in RSA No.7143/2013 dated 24.04.2024. 3. The factual aspect, which is necessary for the disposal of this review petition is that, the suit for injunction filed by the review petitioner in O.S.No.194/2001 came to be decreed by the Trial Court and later, it was reversed by the First Appellate Court in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1312 RP No. 200055 of 2024 R.A.No.42/2006. Being aggrieved by the same, the review petitioner had approached this Court in RSA No.7143/2013, which came to be dismissed by this Court by the impugned judgment. 4. The bone of contention of the review petitioner is that, he had purchased a plot of land from one Indersingh, who in turn had purchased it from NGO Co-operative Society. In the year 2001, the respondents started obstruction to the enjoyment of the suit plot No.8 and therefore, he had approached the Trial Court for injunction. In the defence taken by the respondents, they had contended that a layout had been approved as per Ex.D6 and interalia they had denied the title on the basis of the contention that there was acquisition proceedings in the year 1961-1962. However, such contention remain to be a contention without there being any material to show that there was such an acquisition in the year 1961-1962 for the purpose of establishing a Government Polytechnic i.e., respondent No.2. In the meanwhile, the NGO - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1312 RP No. 200055 of 2024 Co-operative Society, which had sold the plot No.8 to the vendor of the review petitioner had sought approval of a layout as per Ex.D6 and in fact, it was only in respect of a portion of the properties, which were owned by it. Therefore, the suit for injunction came to be dismissed on the ground that there is an approved layout in the form of Ex.D6 and as such, the topography of the site/plot No.8 described in the sale deed of the review petitioner was not supported by the sale deed of his vendor i.e., Indersingh and as there was no need for interference by the second appellate court. 5. Now, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner submits that in fact, the approved layout plan at Ex.D6 was not an approved layout plan and therefore, the conclusions of the Court need to be reviewed. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1 submits that a defence was taken by the respondents in the written statement by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1312 RP No. 200055 of 2024 denying the title of the plaintiff and even though they had not produced any documents which would cast cloud on the title of the plaintiff, a mere contention in the written statement would be enough. It is submitted that even though the respondents contended that the property was the subject matter of acquisition in the year 1961-1962 and no documents were produced on behalf of the respondents, that would not be relevant in the matter. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court feels that, in the light of the sale deeds which are produced by the review petitioner in the form of Exs.P1 and P2 and now certain documents which are sought to be produced, which relate to the acquisition of title by the vendor of review petitioner from his vendor, the question whether the review petitioner has the title to the property or not is a matter, which need to be adjudicated in a separate proceedings as may be chosen by the parties. However, the parties are at liberty to seek a survey of the entire land which was used for forming the layout by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1312 RP No. 200055 of 2024 NGO Co-operative Society and which later was the subject matter of an approval or otherwise as per Ex.D6 and then to find out their ways for an amicable solution. This Court also notices that if there is an acquisition much prior to the sale deed executed in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff by the NGO Co-operative Society, the question arises as to how the sale deeds came to be registered. Therefore, the matter as to whether the plot No.8 falls within the layout mentioned in Ex.D6 has to be kept open for adjudication between the parties, as they choose to. 8. With this observation, the review petition is disposed of. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the parties may be directed to maintain status quo till such solution is found between the parties. Accordingly, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo as on date for a period of six months from today, subject to further orders, if any, by the appropriate forum that the parties may choose to. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1312 RP No. 200055 of 2024 10. In view of disposal of the review petition, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23