- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2617 WP No. 4599 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4599 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: THE COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE -HARIHAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 'A' BLOCK DEVARAJ URS BADAVANE DAVANAGERE - 570 006 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T.P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S L JYOTHIRLINGA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O S LINGAPPA @ LINGARAJ 2. PRAVEEN S AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O S LINGAPPA @ LINGARAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2617 WP No. 4599 of 2024 BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO 133, 5TH CROSS, 'B' BLOCK DEVARAJ URS BADAVANE DAVANAGERE - 570 006 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. V. HEMELATHA, AGA FOR R3, SRI. VIGNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SAGAR V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THAT ORDER DATED 15/06/2022 IN OS NO. 240/2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DAVANAGERE AT ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 1. This petition by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.240/2021, who is also the appellant in M.A.No.14/2022, is directed against the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2617 WP No. 4599 of 2024 impugned order dated 15.06.2022 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.240/2021 by the Trial Court and confirmed by the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the First Appellate Court in M.A.No.14/2022, whereby both the Courts directed the petitioner- authority not to put up any construction over the suit schedule properties. 2. When the matter came up before this Court on 17.09.2024, the following interim order was passed: "Sri. Nagalingappa.K, learned counsel has entered appearance for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioner, the Commissioner, Davanagere-Harihara Urban Development Authority who is arraigned as defendant No.2 in the suit submits that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking a declaration that the act of defendants are in illegal and unlawful. They are also seeking to restrain the defendants from causing interference of peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property at the hands of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has filed a written statement clearly stating that the state government notified and acquired 20 guntas of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2617 WP No. 4599 of 2024 land in re-Sy.No.131/2 under notification bearing No. HUD 90 MIB77 dated 07.09.1977 for the benefit of the then CITB for formation of Devraj Urs Layout. Learned counsel submits that it is clear even from the recitals of the sale deed of the plaintiffs that their vendor purchased 21 guntas of land from the remaining extent of re- Sy.No.131/2, and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot contend that the revenue sites formed by their vendor is the ones abutting the ring road. Moreover, after the formation of the ring road, the authority has initiated the process for construction of the commercial complex in the said Devraj Urs layout in terms of the plan. At this juncture, the suit has been filed, and an order of temporary injunction has been granted by the trial Court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court thereby causing interference in the construction commenced by the authority. Learned counsel therefore submits that when a stand taken by the petitioner in the written statement, along with a copy of the notification of acquisition, and it is contended that 20 guntas of land in re- Sy.No.131/2 has been acquired for the benefit of the authority and the layout has been formed and a portion of the said property, which remained after the formation of the ring road, is being utilized for putting up a commercial complex, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2617 WP No. 4599 of 2024 erred in granting an order of temporary injunction against the true owner. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs seeks to contend that the sites purchased by the plaintiffs are admittedly re- Sy.No.131/2 and therefore, no error has been committed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the petitioner papers, this Court is prima-facie satisfied that the petitioner/authority has taken a stand that 20 guntas of and re- Sy.No.131/2 was acquired for the benefit of the then CITB for formation of Devaraj Urs Layout along with the neighbouring lands. It is for the plaintiffs to place material before the Court to show that what is in the occupation of the petitioner authority/defendant No.2 is not what was acquired, namely 20 guntas and they have gone beyond what was acquired for the benefit of CITB. Such information is not forthcoming from the plaintiffs; moreover, the authority has commenced construction of a commercial complex on the land in question. Consequently, there shall be an interim order of stay of the impugned orders at Annexures-D and E, till the next date of hearing." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2617 WP No. 4599 of 2024 3. Subsequently, on 06.06.2025, the said interim order was modified as hereunder: "Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned senior counsel Sri Vigneshwar S Shastri appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The coordinate bench of this Court, after hearing the counsel for respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, by order dated 17.09.2024, had passed a detailed order granting injunctory relief in favour of the petitioner/defendant. An application is preferred seeking vacation of the said order. Since the order was passed after hearing respondents 1 and 2, the matter requires to be heard. The application would be heard along with the main matter. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 20 guntas of land was acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board, Davanagere. Out of the 20 guntas of land, 6 ½ guntas is put to use for the purpose of formation of the road and the remaining 13 ½ guntas is where the present commercial building is being constructed by the Board. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2617 WP No. 4599 of 2024 The learned senior counsel Sri Vigneshwar S Shastri submits that the construction is being put up by the by the City Improvement Trust Board in the property belonging to the respondents. In the light of the submission made, the CITB shall not put up any construction in the property belonging to the respondents 1 and 2. If they do so, during the pendency of this petition, they would be doing it at their own peril. List the matter on 27.06.2025 in preliminary hearing 'B' group." 4. As could be seen from the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court, which was subsequently modified, this Court has directed the petitioner not to put up any construction on the property claimed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and if such construction was put up, the petitioner would be doing so at their own risk and peril. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 19.01.2026 along with photographs indicating the present status of the construction of a building. The memo and the documents are placed on record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2617 WP No. 4599 of 2024 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is not putting up any construction over the plaint schedule properties as described in the plaint as hereunder: "SCHEDULE 1. The property is vacant revenue site formed in R.S.No.131/9 of Davangere Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Davangere bearing Site No.39 totally measuring 57+36/2 x 111 x 95/2 out of the same eastern side portion measuring 66 + 82/2 x 51+36/2 totally 3219 Sq.Fts. the property bounded as under:- East :- Ring Road; West :- Remaining Property belongs to same Site North :-Property belongs to Yaragunte Chandranna; South :- 30 feets Road; 2. The property is vacant site formed in R.S.No.131/10, Davangere Village, Kasaba Hobali, Davangere Taluk, presently situated at: 2nd Ward, 2nd Division, Kondajji Road, Davangere bearing Site No.1, measuring 44 + 52/2 x 61 1/2 + 5/2, totally 3277 Sq.Fts. The property bounded as hereunder:- East :- Ring Road; West :- Property bearing Site No.1-A; North :- 30 feets Road; South :- Property belongs to Swagi Eranna" - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2617 WP No. 4599 of 2024 7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner is putting up illegal and unauthorised construction on the plaint schedule properties over which the petitioner does not have any manner of right, title, interest or possession. 8. The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly indicate that there is a serious dispute between the parties as regards identity, location, schedule, measurement, boundaries etc., over the properties claimed by both the sides, which question/issue would necessarily have to be decided by the Trial Court only after a full- fledged trial and by appointing a Court Commissioner to conduct a local inspection and to submit a report in this regard. 9. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by modifying the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by issuing certain directions to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within the stipulated time frame since the suit is said to be posted on 22.01.2026. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2617 WP No. 4599 of 2024 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.06.2022 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.240/2021 by the Trial Court and the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the First Appellate Court in M.A.No.14/2022 are hereby modified. 11. The petitioner is permitted to complete the ongoing construction as indicated in the photographs produced along with the memo dated 19.01.2026. 12. It is made clear that the said construction being put up and to be completed by the petitioner shall be subject to the final outcome of the suit and the petitioner shall not claim any equity in this regard and the said construction would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 13. It is further directed that in the event the petitioner does not succeed in the suit, the petitioner would unconditionally hand over the entire property together with construction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 without driving them to file a separate suit for recovery of possession or mandatory injunction and without insisting on amendment of plaint and the Trial Court shall issue these directions in the final judgment and decree to be passed in the suit. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2617 WP No. 4599 of 2024 14. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open to be decided by the Trial Court and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30