- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:181-DB WA No.100630 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO.100630 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: RUDRAPPA S/O LATE NAYAKARA KAREPPA, AGE: 52 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O WARD NO.2, SIRIVARA VILLAGE, KAPPAGAL (POST), BALLARI DISTRICT-583103. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.C. COMPOUND, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ APPELLATE AUTHORITY BALLARI SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, D.C. COMPOUND, BALLARI-583101. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (INAM), BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI-583101. 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, MOKA VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583101. 5. MD. ARIFULLA BASHA, S/O HAJI MD. REHAMATHULLA BASHA, REP. BY HIS G.P.A HOLDER HAJI MD. REHAMATHULLA BASHA, AGED ABOUT 70 YRS, R/O. D.NO.5, WARD NO.23, ISMAIL MANZIL, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:181-DB WA No.100630 of 2024 YASIN SAB MASQUE STREET, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583102. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. T.M. NADAF, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2024, MADE IN W.P. NO. 103106/2024 AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2024, MADE ON I.A. NO. 5/2024 IN W.P.103106/2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT, FURTHER TO CONTINUE THE STATUS-QUO ORDER DATED 04.06.2024 BY PERMITTING THE APPELLANT TO CONTINUE THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS IN THE PETITION LAND, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:181-DB WA No.100630 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The appellant has called in question the interim orders dated 14.11.2024 and 02.12.2024 in W.P. No. 103106/2024. The Writ Court, by the first order dated 14.11.2024, has clarified its earlier order dated 04.06.2024 directing the petitioner and the fifth respondent [the contesting respondent] not to undertake any activity in the subject land, viz., the land measuring 5 acres 9 guntas in Sy. No. 109/A of Sirivara village, Ballari Taluk. The Writ Court, by the subsequent order dated 02.12.204, while considering an application (I.A. No. 5/2024) filed by the appellant for modification of the order dated 14.11.2024, has directed both the appellant and the contesting respondent to abide by the order dated 14.11.2024 clarifying that it has expressed no opinion on the rival claims to the subject land as the trial court will have to, in the pending suit in O.S. No. 214/2023, decide on the merits of an application for temporary injunction. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:181-DB WA No.100630 of 2024 2. This Court must observe that the Writ Court’s order dated 02.12.2024, which is a reiteration of the direction of the order dated 14.11.2024, is founded on two crucial aspects. First, the statement made in writing in the suit in O.S. No. 214/2023 on behalf of the petitioner that there would be no interference with the contesting respondent’s possession of the subject land. Second, a submission made on 23.09.2023, again in the afore suit, that the application for temporary injunction (I.A. No.2) could be considered along with the main suit. The Writ Court, because of these two aspects, has opined prima facie that the appellant is not in possession of the subject land, and therefore, he cannot be permitted to continue with the agricultural operations. 3. The appellant and the contesting respondent have rival claims over the subject land. The contesting respondent asserts that the grant of Occupancy Rights to the subject land vide the Order dated 18.02.1987 is in favour of his original predecessor-in-title, and the appellant also proposes to rely upon the very order but to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:181-DB WA No.100630 of 2024 assert that his father is granted such rights to the subject land. If the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has examined the rival claims as aforesaid in Revenue Appeal No. 86/20231 by order dated 31.10.2023 holding in favour of the contesting respondent, the question is at large in O.S. No. 214/2023 with the Writ Court also being seized of the very question. This Court must next observe that the appellant’s writ petition is after the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 31.10.2023 is called in question unsuccessfully with the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner under section136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [The KLR Act]. The merits of the rival claims will have to be considered in the afore proceedings, and the only question for consideration in this intra-court appeal is whether there must be any interference with the Writ Court’s impugned interim orders. 4. Sri Chidananda B, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri T.M. Nadaf, the learned counsel for the 1 The proceedings in this appeal is because of the subsequent order dated 31.10.2023 in favour of the appellant. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:181-DB WA No.100630 of 2024 contesting respondent, and Sri Praveen K. Uppar, the learned AGA for official respondents, are heard for final disposal though the appeal is listed for preliminary hearing with the appellant having filed an application for permission to harvest standing crop in the subject land. Sri Chidananda B submits that the contesting respondent cannot dispute that the appellant has cultivated the subject land to grow paddy, which is ready for harvesting, and to support the appellant’s prayer for permission to harvest the standing paddy crop in the subject land, the learned counsel contends that the appellant has borrowed loan and incurred expenses. 5. Sri T.M. Nadaf does not dispute that there is a standing paddy crop in the subject land ready for harvesting, but he asserts that the appellant, acting under the shelter of certain proceedings filed with the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, has trespassed into the subject land and begun cultivation. The learned counsel emphasizes that the appellant cannot be permitted to harvest the standing paddy crop because the appellant has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:181-DB WA No.100630 of 2024 trespassed into the subject land and also because of the following circumstances. [a] The order dated 18.02.1987 is for a grant of occupancy rights in favour of Sri Janaki Subbaiah son of Subba Sastry [the contesting respondent’s predecessor-in-interest] and the contesting respondent has purchased the subject land for valuable consideration way back in the year 2004. [b] The contesting respondent has had the advantage of the revenue entries over the subject land right from the date he purchased the subject land with his predecessors-in-interest having the advantage of the revenue entries prior to change. [c] The contesting respondent has applied under Section 95 of the KLR Act for conversion of the subject land from agriculture to Non-agriculture purposes, and this permission is granted in the year 2020. [d] The contesting respondent to protect his title and possession has instituted a suit in O.S. No. 214/2023, and this respondent’s application for temporary injunction is still pending consideration. 6. The rival submissions are considered. This Court is not persuaded to take any exception with the Writ Court placing reliance on two submissions before the trial - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:181-DB WA No.100630 of 2024 court in O.S. No. 214/2023. Further, if these submissions alone are overwhelming, the other circumstance relied upon by the contesting respondent could be crucial as well. These factors do not persuade this Court to opine that the appellant [whose right to possess the subject land will have to be examined in the light of the contesting respondent’s case that there is a trespass in the pending proceedings and because a contempt application is also pending] must be permitted to harvest the standing crop, but the crop must be harvested. 7. This Court must opine that with all questions till at large with the Writ Court also being seized of the appellant’s grievance with the Assistant Commissioner’s order, the fifth respondent must harvest the standing crop in the subject land but on terms. In the light of the afore, the following order observing that the appeal and the application for permission to harvest stand disposed of without any opinion on merits howsoever. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:181-DB WA No.100630 of 2024 ORDER [A] The writ appeal stands disposed of permitting the fifth respondent to harvest standing crop in the subject land but depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 22.01.2025. The contesting respondent shall deposit this amount with the Registry as aforesaid subject to the orders of the Writ Court in the pending writ petition. [B] This Court’s interference as aforesaid shall not in any manner undermine the Writ Court’s direction to both the petitioner and the fifth respondent not to undertake any activity in the subject land once the standing paddy crop is harvested the parties shall not change the nature and character of the subject land. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:181-DB WA No.100630 of 2024 Consequentially, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE BVV LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54