- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2916 WP No. 100094 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100094 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: POOJAR MALLAPPA S/O. BARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MADURU VILLAGE, H B HALLI TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. 3. 4. K. MARIYAPPA S/O KALAMANI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s SMT. K HANUMANTHAVVA W/O LATE K MARIYAPPA AGED, 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE. K. SARNAPPA S/O LATE K. MARIYAPPA AGED: 37 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE K. MALLAPPA S/O K. MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE K. MALLAPPA S/O KALAMANI BASAPPA @ BASAPPA ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.18 11:58:23 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2916 WP No. 100094 of 2025 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE K. MASTHEPPA S/O KALAMANI BASAPPA @ BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE SMT. DODDA YAMUNAVVA D/O KALAMANI BASAPPA @ BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE SMT. MASTEVVA D/O KALAMANI BASAPPA @ BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE SMT. SHANTHAVVA D/O KALAMANI BASAPPA @ BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE SMT. DURGAMMA D/O KALAMANI BASAPPA @ BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE SMT. HANUMAVA W/O NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE ALL ARE RESIDENT OF MADHURU VILLAGE TQ: H.B. HALLI, DIST: BALLARI-583201. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 28-10- 2024, PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, ON IA NO. 13/2024 IN OS NO. 95/2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2916 WP No. 100094 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari by the impugned order dated 28.10.2024, passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC Hagribommanahalli, on I.A.No.13/2024 in O.S.No.95/2015, vide Annexure-D and b. Issue such any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. The respondents had filed a suit in O.S.No.95/2015 seeking for injunction against the defendant therein from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and/or dispossessing the plaintiffs. In the said suit, the defendant filed a written statement contending - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2916 WP No. 100094 of 2025 that the basis of the claim of the petitioner being the order of the Land Tribunal; the said order of the Land Tribunal was passed beyond a period of limitation, has fraudulently been obtained and is void in law as also without jurisdiction and in that background, an application under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedures was filed, seeking for framing of additional issues as under: 1. “Whether the defendant proves that the order of land tribunal is void-ab-initio no title flows to the plaintiff or their father and the so called possession claimed by the plaintiff is also no possession” as alleged in the written statement page No.4 para No.e) 2. “Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff father merely an archak in Anjeneyaswamy temple, he is cunningly without the knowledge of comity of temple wrongly applied for grant of occupancy rights under Form No.7 of KLR Act,” as alleged in the written statement page No.3 para No.a) 4. The said application, though not opposed by the plaintiffs, came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 28-10-2024 on the ground that the issues framed cover the issues sought for. It is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2916 WP No. 100094 of 2025 challenging to same, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Shri Sharanabasawa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the additional issues which are requested to be framed by the defendant are required for effectively deciding the lis between the parties. 6. Having gone through the plaint, written statement and the application under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is seen that what is essentially sought to be contended is that the Land Tribunal has wrongly granted the occupancy right and on that basis the additional issues have been sought for. The Civil Court, in my considered opinion, would not have any jurisdiction to decide on the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, more so in view of Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2916 WP No. 100094 of 2025 Court to decide or deal with any question which is by or under the Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the authorities constituted thereunder. If at all the petitioner were to contend that the order of the Land Tribunal is not binding and/or was void and non-est, it is for the petitioner to have challenged the said order of the Land Tribunal. The petitioner cannot seek for framing of an issue in respect of the validity of the order of the Land Tribunal in a civil suit since the jurisdiction of the said Civil Court being barred in that regard. In view of the above, though not for the reasons stated by the Trial Court, for the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the additional issues which are requested to be framed cannot be framed in a civil suit relating to injunction. As such, no grounds being made out, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10