- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10573 WP No. 104835 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 104835 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: T. YARRISWAMY S/O. LATE THIPPAREDDY, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KHANAHOSAHALLI, KUDLIGI TOWN AND TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.C.OFFICE, HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583201. 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY ZILLA PANCHAYAT, ZP OFFICE, HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583201. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYAT, T.P.OFFICE, KUDLIGI, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583201. 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KHANAHOSAHALLI, GRAM PANCHAYAT, TOWN AND TALUKA: KUDLIGI, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583135. 5. THE PRESIDENT KHANAHOSAHALLI, GRAM PANCHAYAT, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10573 WP No. 104835 of 2025 TOWN AND TALUKA: KUDLIGI, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583135. 6. BORANNA S/O. LATE PALAIAH, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O.KHANAHOSAHALLI, KUDLIGI TOWN AND TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583135. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRIYUTHS. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1; SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,I) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 16-04-2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUDLIGI IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 06 OF 2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ALLOW THE PETITION.II) ISSUE SUCH OTHER INTERIM RELIEFS AND PASS SUCH OTHER INTERIM ORDERS AS THIS HON BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. Sri Shivraj Hiremath, learned counsel, accepts notice for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Notice to respondent No.6 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10573 WP No. 104835 of 2025 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated. 16-04-2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 06 of 2024 produced at Annexure-H and allow the Petition. ii) Issue such other interim reliefs and pass such other interim orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. 3. The petitioner had filed a suit seeking an injunction in respect of a pathway which, according to the petitioner, this pathway provides access to the plaintiff’s properties. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the trial Court, which had granted an interim order of injunction. However, the said interim order came to be set aside in appeal in M.A. No. 6 of 2024. 4. While considering the said appeal, the first appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the defendant is the owner of the subject property, having been allotted the same in the year 2012, and is in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10573 WP No. 104835 of 2025 possession of the property. The suit filed by the petitioner is one for a bare injunction without seeking any substantive relief, though it is claimed that the petitioner has an easementary right over the portion of land where the respondents now intend to put up construction. 5. When no substantive relief has been sought, a mere claim of an easementary right would not entitle the petitioner to the relief of an injunction, especially when the title and possession stand in favour of the defendant. I am of the considered opinion that the first appellate Court has rightly set aside the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. The defendant, having been allotted the property by the Gram Panchayath, and being in possession, cannot be restrained from proceeding with construction on the said land. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10573 WP No. 104835 of 2025 6. No ground for interference having been made out, the petition stands dismissed at the admission stage. 7. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner from seeking appropriate reliefs in accordance with law, if so advised. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE VB CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36