Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 60468 (KAR)

KARNATAKA RAJYA SARAKARI NAUKARARA SANGH RAMDURG v. SHRI SHEKAPPA S/O RAMAPPA KORAVAR

WP/101111/2024 · 2025-11-03

Anant Ramanath Hegde

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14958 WP No. 101111 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 101111 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA RAJYA SARAKARI NAUKARARA SANGH RAMDURG, BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE CHAIRMAN, IRANAGOUDA YAMANAPPAGOUDA PAWADIGOUDRA, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. TALUKA PANCHAYAT PREMISES RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 123. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.G. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI SHEKAPPA S/O RAMAPPA KORAVAR, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. C.T.S. NO.1877/2A, RADHAPUR PETH, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 123. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MAY BE PASSED BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S. NO.79/2023 BY COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT: RAMDURG, DATED 25/09/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MAY BE PASSED BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED IN M.A. NO.8/2023 BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT RAMDURG, DATED 21/12/2023, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14958 WP No. 101111 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner assailing the order dated 25.09.2023 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.79/2023 by the Court of Civil Judge, Ramdurg1, and order dated 21.12.2023 passed in M.A.No.8/2023 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurg2, granting injunction in favour of plaintiff/respondent. 2. The petitioner/defendant was restrained from putting up of any structure in the suit schedule property. The defendant filed an appeal against the said order, but the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, earlier the land was granted to the petitioner, and same is illegally cancelled. He filed an appeal against the said order of cancellation of the grant order, and his possession is 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14958 WP No. 101111 of 2024 very much established in the suit property. As such, both Courts entered in granting injunction against the petitioner, who is in possession of the property. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the grant order in favour of the petitioner is cancelled, and same is not set aside, as such, he is a person, who has no title on the property. The injunction granted to restrain the petitioner from putting up the structure is well within four corners of law. 5. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 6. The fact that the land which has been granted to the petitioner is cancelled is not in dispute. The petitioner is yet to file an appeal against the said order. The writ petition filed against the said order of cancellation is withdrawn with a liberty to avail the Appellate remedy. Thus, the position, as of now is the petitioner, has no title over the property, and his title is subject to re-grant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14958 WP No. 101111 of 2024 7. Under these circumstances, the petitioner, if restrained from putting up of structure in the suit property, the order cannot be said to be an erroneous order to interdict in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Observations made in this order are only confined to interim application and no opinion is expressed on the contention relating to cancellation of grant order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 52