- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29699 WP No. 13590 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 13590 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GOLLAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT REP. BY PDO OFFICER SMT. REKHA G., W/O JAYAPRAKASH B.G., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI.A.VELAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.DEEPA V., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. H.A. MANJUNATH SON OF LATE ANNADANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT HYADALU VILLAGE, KASABA, HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.M.S.MOHAN, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CLEAR THE BLOCKAGE DONE BY HIM TO THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND CLEAR THE SAME AND DIRECT Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29699 WP No. 13590 of 2025 THE RESPONDENT TO PAY SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- (RUPEES FIVE LAKHS RUPEES) AS COMPENSATION INCLUDING DAMAGES TO THE PETITIONER FOR DEMOLISHING THE ROAD FORMED BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC, in OS.No.125/2024 dated 08.01.2025 by the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, confirmed in M.A.No.2/2025 by order dated 21.03.2025 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, the plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction, stating that the defendant, who was the owner of the said property on 28.09.2023 and 07.02.2024, was blocking the road by digging the drain and dumping the mud on the road, thereby curbing the approach to the village and the properties. Further, due to the said act of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29699 WP No. 13590 of 2025 defendant, the road, which was developed as per the work order dated 06.06.2022 by spending a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, is now unusable. The villagers are now facing the problem, and it is difficult for the villagers to approach the properties situated on either side of the road. Along with the suit, he has filed IA.No.1 seeking an injunction. 3. The Defendant filed a written statement. It is the case of the Defendant that he had purchased agricultural property bearing Sy.No.51/5, measuring 30 guntas, including 0.15 guntas of ‘A’ karab land, situated at Hyadalu village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore, through family members by way of a registered sale deed dated 09.11.2015. Since then, the Defendant has been in absolute, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and is running a business of a Hollow Block cement brick factory. It is the case that the Defendant has been actively involved and a key person in raising his voice against the Gollahalli Grama Panchayath, represented by PDO, for causing the illegal establishment of a Tar Plant and a cement ready mix industry in Sy.No.138, 145/1, 145/3, 146/1 and 146/6 without the necessary - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29699 WP No. 13590 of 2025 permission from the concerned authorities, which is causing environmental damage. 4. It is the case of the defendant that the property bearing Sy.No.51/5 is situated adjacent to the Nelamangala- Doddaballapur Highway, with Karab land measuring 0.15 guntas belonging to his property, and a small rain-water reservoir that is helpful for the defendant's coconut and arecanut plantation. When that's the case, the plaintiff, without notice to the defendant, started constructing a road inside the defendant's property with the help of a JCB and trucks, levelling the rain-water reservoir for the purpose of helping private industries and cement and Tar plantation factories established behind the defendant's property. It is the grievance of the defendant that the president of the grama panchayat is actively interested in grabbing the defendant's property under the guise of development, since he was once an opponent of the defendant in grama panchayath elections, and on these grounds, a frivolous suit is filed. 5. While considering the injunction, the trial Court observed that on a plain reading of the plaint, it appears that in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29699 WP No. 13590 of 2025 one breath the plaintiff has stated that the defendant is interfering with the suit schedule property, whereas in another breath, by producing documents, the plaintiff shows encroachment on karab land of 15 guntas. The trial Court observed that if the plaintiff is not in possession of the said karab land, the claim for injunction by filing this application against the defendant is not maintainable. The trial Court has considered the registration certificate in the name of the defendant in respect of HMV Cement product and the letter given by the defendant to the gram panchayath and taluk panchayath. The trial Court has also furnished the copy of the Court document in O.S.No.399/2012, Crime No.252/2023, and the judgment copy in O.S.No.481/2021. On perusal of the RTC extracts and other documents, it appears that the dispute in the case is with respect to karab land of 15 guntas in Sy.No.51/5. 6. The RTC extract from 1969-2001 shows that 15 guntas of land are B karab land, whereas the RTC extract from 2001- 2024 shows that the 15 guntas of land are in A karab land. These documents show ambiguity in the revenue records with regard to Sy.No.51/5. Whether the 15 guntas of karab land in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29699 WP No. 13590 of 2025 Sy.No.51/5 are A karab or B karab has to be ascertained by the detailed trial. The documents produced by the plaintiff also show that there is an encroachment. Such being the case, an injunction order cannot be granted, and accordingly the trial court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order passed in O.S.No.125/2024, the petitioner preferred an appeal by filing M.A.No.2/2025. The appellate court also confirmed the findings of the trial court and observed that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case, demonstrate irreparable harm, or show that the balance of convenience lies in their favour, thereby warranting the denial of the temporary injunction sought against the defendant. The plaintiff argued that a disputed 15 guntas of B karab land in Sy.No.51/5 has historically been used as a public road and submitted RTC extracts, survey sketches, and a letter from the Tahsildar to substantiate this claim. These documents do not conclusively prove that the land was designated or consistently used as a public thoroughfare. In contrast, the defendant presented stronger and more reliable evidence, including a registered sale deed from 2015, recent RTC extracts from 2023-2024, an encumbrance certificate, and prior court orders, all of which - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29699 WP No. 13590 of 2025 clearly establish his ownership and lawful possession of the entire 30 guntas of land, including the disputed portion. The RTC specifically records the defendant's name as the possessor of the property, further strengthening his claim and leaving no ambiguity regarding his legal rights over the land. The plaintiffs' claim that the road is indispensable for villagers' access to the main road was found to be unsupported by substantial evidence, particularly as alternative routes exist and no credible proof was provided to demonstrate severe hardship or disruption to villagers' daily lives. Granting an injunction at this stage would unjustly interfere with the defendant's legitimate possession and use of the land for agricultural business activities, causing unwarranted prejudice to his established rights. Regarding the plaintiffs' allegations about the public nature of the land and its usage, a detailed and comprehensive trial is required for factual determination, and they cannot be summarily decided at the interlocutory stage. The appellate Court finds no justification to disturb the current status quo or impede the defendant’s right over the property. Accordingly, the appellate Court has dismissed the same. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29699 WP No. 13590 of 2025 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the revenue records produced by the petitioner show that the land was used as B karab land till 2002. Thereafter, from 2002 to 2024, it is shown as A karab land, and now again the revenue records show that it is B karab land. It is submitted that there is a procedure for conversion of land from B karab land to A karab land, and that procedure was not followed. The suit is filed by the grama panchayath in the interest of the villagers, as the defendants have encroached upon the road and are obstructing villagers from reaching their respective lands, and both Courts have failed to consider this fact. The Courts ought to have looked at the larger public interest involved, and without appreciating the facts and the contentions put forth by the plaintiff, both Courts have dismissed the I.A filed seeking an injunction. 8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submits that both the Courts have rightly rejected the application seeking the injunction. It is submitted that there are disputes between the Panchayath Development Officer, the President, and the defendants, which have led to the litigation. It is submitted that, in this regard, they have lodged a police - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29699 WP No. 13590 of 2025 complaint. It is submitted that an investigation has been conducted, and the charge sheet is yet to be filed. It is only because of these disputes and at the behest of interested parties that this litigation has been initiated by the Panchayath. It is further submitted that, with regard to the revenue entries, the A karab, and the conversion of these lands, the remedy available to the parties is before the revenue authorities, and the Civil Court cannot decide the dispute. It is further submitted that there are photographs showing that there is a road, that the defendant is not obstructing the public road, and that the villagers have access to reach their respective lands. It is submitted that, with regard to whether the land belongs to the petitioner or not, whether it is A karab land or B karab land, and whether there is a conversion or not, the court will decide the same in due course, and at the interlocutory stage the court has rightly decided the same, and there are no grounds to interfere. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the respondent, perused the material on record. The petitioner, which is a Gram Panchayat, filed a suit for the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction, and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29699 WP No. 13590 of 2025 permanent injunction. It is a case where the defendant has encroached the public road and he is making construction, thereby obstructing its use by the villagers. Admittedly, in this case, the revenue entries show that it is B karab land till 2002, and thereafter it is shown that it is A karab land. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on the procedure to be followed and how lands can be converted from A karab to B karab or otherwise. This issue cannot be decided by the Court at the threshold. When an application is filed seeking injunction, the Court will look at the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. In this case, as rightly observed by the trial Court, at one breath the plaintiff says that the defendant has encroached the land, and on the other breath he wants an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the said passage. The trial Court has rightly considered that, when the petitioner is not at all using or in possession of the same, granting an injunction at this stage is not appropriate. Both the parties were relying on certain documents. Unless and until a thorough trial is conducted, the contentions of both the parties cannot be appreciated. As rightly observed by the trial Court, regarding the earlier - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29699 WP No. 13590 of 2025 existence of a road and the encroachment or obstruction by the defendants, no documents are filed to substantiate the said claim of the plaintiff, except relying on revenue entries till 2002. In these circumstances, both the Courts have rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the prima facie case and the other two ingredients are also not satisfied. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the trial Court. 10. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16