- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.14688/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BHADREGOWDA S/O NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 2. SRI. H.R. SANDEEPA S/O REVANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 3. SRI. H.L. JAGADISHA S/O LAXMANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 4. SRI. H.P. VIJAYA S/O PARVATHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 5. SRI. H.T. PRASANNA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 6. SRI. H.B. PRASHANTHA S/O BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 7. SRI. H.G. VIJAYA KUMAR S/O GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 8. SRI. NAGARAJA S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021 9. SRI. H.C. PUTTARAJEGOWDA S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 10. SRI. H.H. LINGAPPAGOWDA S/O HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HADIHALLI VILLAGE, MALALURU POST AMBALE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.B. ONKARA, ADV.,) AND: SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O SRI. BHADREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDENTS OF HADIHALLI VILLAGE MALALURU POST, AMBALE HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIKRAM H. BHAT, ADV., FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADV.,) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN MISC.APPEAL NO.15/2019 ON 24.01.2020 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE-H. CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE IST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU ON I.A.NO.1 FILED IN O.S.NO.468/2018 DATED 25.02.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-E & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.02.2019 passed in O.S.No.468/2018 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkamagaluru (for short, ‘the trial Court’) and the order dated 24.01.2020 passed in M.A.No.15/2019 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkamagaluru (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Sri.K.B.Onkara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants submits that the respondent- plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction against the petitioners herein. In the said suit, the petitioners have filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments as well as the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is specifically contended that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021 10 acre of land in the same survey number is granted to the beneficiaries under the scheme Nava Grama Yojane and in the very same land, the respondent-plaintiff is claiming to be in possession which is factually incorrect. It is submitted that the Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Ltd., has entered into separate agreement with the petitioners-defendants for allotment of sites which they are claiming and the same land is reserved for formation of sites. It is further submitted that after the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court, which has been affirmed in the appeal. The grant of land in favour of the plaintiff was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 09.12.2020. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned orders by allowing the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Vikram H.Bhat, learned counsel for Smt.Vaishali Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supports the impugned orders of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and submits that both the Courts have concurrently held that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021 respondent-plaintiff has made out prima facie case with regard to the title and possession and granted temporary injunction, which cannot be interfered with. Insofar as the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 09.12.2020 is concerned, it is submitted that the same is under challenge. It is further submitted that the authorities proceeded to allot the land for the Ashraya scheme, which was granted to the plaintiff and such action of the authority is challenged in W.P.No.11170/2023 and this Court has stayed the further proceedings, which affirms the lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.468/2018 before the trial Court seeking the relief - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021 of permanent injunction against the defendants, their men, agents, etc. from illegally and forcibly trespassing into the suit schedule property or causing damages to the crops grown and also to the fence put up around the schedule property or in any way interfering with and causing obstructions from peaceful cultivation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is measuring 4 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.202 of Hadhihalli Village, Amble Hobli, Chikmagalur Taluk. The petitioners have opposed the said plaint by filing the written statement. The plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The trial Court, under the impugned order, has allowed the application by restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021 The said order of the trial Court was assailed in M.A.No.15/2019 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2020. 6. It is to be noticed that the respondent-plaintiff has specifically pleaded before the trial Court that the plaintiff has been in unauthorised occupation and enjoyment of suit schedule property from 1982-83 onwards and she had filed an application under Form No.53 before the jurisdictional Tahasildar and the application of the plaintiff was duly considered by the Regularisation Committee and passed an order on 15.12.2017 granting the suit schedule property. It is also specifically contended that the plaintiff has been issued with a Saguvali Chit and thereafter the records were mutated as per M.R.No.18/2017-18. It is specifically contended that the plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from 1982 onwards till this day. In order to prove the grant and factum of possession, the plaintiff has produced the grant - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021 order, Saguvali Chit, Mutation Register Extract and the RTC. The perusal of the RTC indicates that the name of the plaintiff is reflected in respect of 4 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.202 of Hadhihalli Village. The said RTC also indicates that 46 acres 11 guntas is the total extent and out of which 26 acres 20 guntas is shown as gomal land; 2 acres is shown as a graveyard; and 4 acres 35 guntas is shown as standing in the name of the plaintiff. Considering the said document as well as the document produced by the defendants i.e., the communication between the Tahasildar and Deputy Commissioner, which is referred in para 17, the trial Court proceeded to record the finding that the plaintiff has made out the prima facie case with regard to the title and possession and granted temporary injunction. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the material on record, reaffirmed the said finding of the trial Court. 7. It is to be noticed that the defendants are contending that the very same land is earmarked for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021 formation of sites and Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Ltd., has entered into an agreement with the petitioners. The agreements produced at Annexure-L series, though indicate the name of the defendants, there is no reference with regard to the survey number. Hence, the said documents would not confer any right on the defendants. It is to be noticed that after the impugned orders, the petitioners herein have filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the grant made in favour of the plaintiff and the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 09.12.2020 has set aside the grant of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has contended that the said order is under challenge. The respondent has placed on record the order dated 09.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.11170/2023 and contend that the very respondent-plaintiff has challenged the action of the authorities wherein the land granted to the plaintiff which is the suit schedule property is now earmarked for the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021 purpose of Ashraya scheme and this Court in the aforesaid order has stayed the further proceedings. 8. The aforesaid chronology of events and the material placed on record unequivocally makes it clear that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and considering the same, the trial Court has rightly protected the interest of the plaintiff by granting temporary injunction. I do not find any merit in the present petition. 9. It is to be noticed that the petitioners have contended that the petitioners have filed an application for impleadment in W.P.No.11170/2023 and if the said application is allowed and the said writ petition filed by the plaintiff is dismissed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 09.12.2020 cancelling the grant attains finality, it is open for the petitioners to seek variation of the order of the trial Court by pointing out the subsequent events. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6