- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1131 OF 2016 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573201 3. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573115. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHANKARE GOWDA S/O BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, BENNUR VILLAGE AND POST, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573115. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K G SADASHIVAIAH.,ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.010.2014 PASSED IN Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 RA.NO.7/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,BELUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.172/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) BELUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2014 passed in R.A.No.7/2012 by the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Belur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.172/2002 by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), and JMFC, Belur. 2. The parties are referred to, based on their rankingS before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit land was granted to the plaintiff by the grant order made under Darkasth, and a saguvali chit was issued. As such, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. He is paying land revenue regarding the suit schedule property. After the grant, the resurvey was conducted regarding of suit schedule property bearing Survey No.38/1 of Mallapura village, and following the resurvey, a new survey number was assigned as Survey No.78. The plaintiff, by investing a huge amount, made the suit schedule property as a fit land for cultivation, and the plaintiff and his family members are depending on the suit schedule land, cultivating and enjoying the same. It is contended that the suit schedule land neither belonged to the forest department nor was it forest land. The defendants have no - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. On 09.10.2002, the officials of the defendants i.e., defendant No.3 threatened the plaintiff to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff requested the defendants not to dispossess him from the suit schedule property, but the defendants did not give any heed to the request made by the plaintiff. Hence, cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit for a permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit schedule property is a forest land, and the Tahsildar has no right to grant the said land in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not acquired any right, title or interest by the grant order alleged to have been granted by the Tahasildar, Belur. The Tahasildar has no right to grant the land belonging to the forest department and any grant so made iS void. It is contended that the forest department has planted trees on the suit schedule - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 property, and invested huge amount in the development of the said land. The plaintiff, to grab Acacia and Evcalyptus trees grown by the defendants, and cause irreparable loss, concocted the documents. It is submitted that suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the above said pleadings, framed the following issues: :«ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ: 1) ಾಯು ಾಾ ಆಯ ಾನೂನು ಪಾರ ಾನ ಮತು ಅನುಭವ ೊಂ ಾ !ೆಂದು ರುಜುಾತುಪ$ಸು&ಾ!ೆ'ೕ? 2) ಾಯ ಾಾ ಆಯ ಾೕನೆ) ಪ*ಾಯರು ಅ$+ ಆತಂಕ ಪ$ ಾ -ೆಂದು ರುಜುಾತುಪ$ಸು&ಾ-ೆ'ೕ ? 3) ಾ.ೆ ಾೆಯ ೇ/ರುವ 0ಾಥ2!ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು 3ಾಡಲು 6ೕಗ89 ೆ'ೕ? 4) AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ? 6. The plaintiff, to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW2 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P.18. The official of the third defendant was examined as DW-1, and no documentary evidence was produced. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the oral and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative, and issue No.3 in the negative, and consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It is ordered that the defendants are restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff, vide judgment dated 26.11.2008. 7. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, in O.S.No.172/2002 filed an appeal in R.A.No.7/2012 on the file of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Belur. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff proved he is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 2. Whether the plaintiff proved the defendants caused interference to his possession of the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought? 4. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court is not according to law capricious arbitrary and warrants interference? 5. What order? 8. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1, to 3 in the affirmative, point Nos.4 in the negative, and point No.5 as per the final order. Consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 10.10.2014. 9. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 10. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the defendants. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 11. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that suit land is a forest land. He submits that Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to grant the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. He submits that defendants/said authorities have not taken prior approval of the central government. Hence, the grant made in favour of the plaintiff is void. He submits that the Courts below have failed to consider the said aspect, and passed the impugned judgments, and decrees. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the defendants. 13. The plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as it was granted to him by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Rehabilitation) on 30.11.2001 and in pursuance of the said grant, a saguvali chit was also issued by the Tahsildar, and the khata of the suit schedule property was - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 also effected in his name. Since then, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. To support the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1. There is a replica of plaint averments in the examination-in-chief of PW1. 14. The plaintiff to prove that he is in possession of the suit schedule property, produced the documents. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the memorandum issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer HRP (Rehabilitation) wherein the plaintiff was granted land in Sy.No.38/1 of Mallikarjunapura village. Ex.P2 is the copy of the grant certificate issued by the Tahasildar in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P3 is a copy of the mutation register wherein, on the basis of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, the plaintiff name was mutated. Ex.P4 is a RTC regarding the land in Sy.No.38/p3. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the Podi. Ex.P6 is the Tippanni Utaar - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 Ex.P7 is the certified copy of the sketch regarding Sy.No.78 land. Ex.P8 is the boundary certificate with respect to Sy.No.38. Ex.P9 is the revenue paid receipt regarding the Khata No.78, which shows that he paid the revenue to the government. Ex.P10 is the Akaar Bandh. Ex.P11 is the RTC extract regarding the land in Sy.No.38 of Mallikarjuna village of 1996-1997 to 1999- 2000. Ex.P12 is a mutation register relates to Sy.No.38. Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 are the RTC extract regarding the suit property showing the plaintiff's possession. Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 are 2 photographs Ex.P17 is a copy of the complaint lodged by the Revenue Inspector. Ex.P18 is a RTC extract regarding the suit property showing the plaintiff's possession. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 15. In the course of cross examination of PW1, except denying the averments made in the examination- in-chief, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness, to disbelieve his evidence. To prove the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff examined one witness i.e, Kalleshappa as PW.2. He deposed that suit land was granted in favour of the plaintiff, and a saguvali chit was issued based on the grant order in favour of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. He further deposed that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. 16. Per contra, the official of 3rd defendant was examined as DW.1. He deposed that the suit schedule land is the reserved forest land and the Tahasildar has no authority to grant the said land in favour of the plaintiff. The said grant made in favour of the plaintiff is illegal and void. Hence, he deposed that plaintiff is not in possession - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 of the suit schedule property. The defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants have invested a huge amount and grown trees on the suit land. The plaintiff is trying to encroach upon the forest land. 17. The trial Court decreed the earlier suit vide judgment dated 18.01.2006. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2006, passed by the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. 18. During the pendency of the appeal before the First Appellate Court, the defendants filed an application for the production of additional evidence. The First Appellate Court allowed the application as well as the appeal filed by the defendants. Consequently, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remitted the matter to the trial Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to the defendants to lead further evidence. Even after remand, the defendants, though, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 have produced the documents, but did not choose to mark the said documents. The defendants have not produced any documents before the trial Court to show that the suit land is a forest land. Hence, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendants again preferred the appeal No. R.A.No.7/2012. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the materials on record, dismissed the first appeal, and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.172/2002. 19. Considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, it discloses that the Tahasildar had granted land in favour of the plaintiff, and a saguvali chit was issued in favour of the plaintiff. By virtue of the grant order, the name of the plaintiff appears in the revenue records. Furthermore, the plaintiff has also produced records to show that the Deputy Tahsildar has passed an order to remove the name of the forest department from the RTC. The defendants have not - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 challenged the said order. The said order has attained the finality. The plaintiff has established his possession over the suit schedule property as of the date of filing of the suit. The defendants attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment under the guise that it is forest land, as observed above. The Deputy Tahasildar has passed an order to delete the name of the forest department. Hence, the trial Court based on the material on record, was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the First Appellate Court, on re- appreciation of the material on record, was justified in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.172/2002. Both the Courts below, have concurrently recorded the finding of fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Furthermore, in a suit for bare injunction, the Court is required to see the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as of the date of the suit and interference. Admittedly, the plaintiff has produced - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26262 RSA No. 1131 of 2016 documents to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, I do not find any substantial question of law arising in this appeal. Accordingly, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments, and decrees. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. 2. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. 3. No order as to the costs. 4. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration, and are, accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24