- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3123 WP No. 193 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 193 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. V R SHIVAKUMARASWAMY S/O LATE RAJAPPA ALIS RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. V R RENUKASWAMY S/O LATE RAJAPAP ALIS RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. K A SHIVAPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 4. K A PRAKASH S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE R/AT JODIKRISHNAPURA VILALGE DUDDA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK 573 201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KALYAN R, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SUBRAMANYA S/O LATE SUBBARAYA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT JODIKRISHNAPURA VILALGE DUDDA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK – 573 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHETHAN B.,ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3123 WP No. 193 of 2024 22/11/2023 ON IA NO. 9 IN O.S. NO. 639/2016 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HASSAN, AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WP AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW I.A. NO. 9 FILED UNDER SECTION 133 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961. 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 This petition by the defendants in O.S.No.639/2016 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, is directed against the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 passed on I.A.No.9, whereby the said application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for stay of suit and reference of the dispute to the Land Tribunal was dismissed by the trial Court with cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners - defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The petitioners- defendants having entered appearance, not only contested the suit - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3123 WP No. 193 of 2024 by filing written statement, but also filed an application under Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act seeking stay of suit and reference of the dispute to the Land tribunal. The said application having been opposed by the respondent-plaintiff, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.9 by holding as under:- ORDERS ON I.A. NO.9 “ This is an application filed by the defendants Under section 133 of the Land Reforms Act with a prayer to refer the case/matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal to decide the lis pending between the parties in the interest of equity and justice. The plaintiff has opposed to the present application by filing detailed objections and prayed to dismiss the application. Heard both the parties on the application. I have gone through the plaint, prayer sought under the suit, written application and statement, objections. The present application is supported by the affidavit of the defendant No.1 wherein he deposed that, the suit schedule property was originally belonged to one Mallashetty S/o Krishnappa who was none other than the grand-father of the defendants. The suit schedule property was granted in favour of the grand-father of the defendants viz Mallashetty from the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams Abolition, Hassan Division vide order No. A6.O.R.713/65-66 dated 31.03.1966 on the basis of occupancy rights. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3123 WP No. 193 of 2024 Since then the said Mallashetty become the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and cultivating the same. After the death of said Mallashetty, the father of the defendants were become the owners in possession of the same and were cultivating on the same. Further it is deposed that, the plaintiff on the basis of some created documents by misrepresenting before the revenue department has changed the katha of the suit schedule property into his name. The defendants have preferred an appeal against the said katha before the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan under After R.A.No.61/2014-15. contest the said appeal was allowed and the katha made in the name of plaintiff was canceled. On the basis of said order katha/mutation pertaining to the suit schedule property is also accepted in the name of defendants. There after the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants. As per the nature of the property and lis pending between the parties the present matter has to be decided before the land tribunal as per law. As such it is necessary to refer the case to the land tribunal for better adjudication. On these grounds the defendants prayed to allow the present application. Per contra, the plaintiff has filed detailed objections to the present application wherein he denied the entire contents of application and affidavit annexed to the present application. by It is special contention of the plaintiff that, the not present application maintainable as the grounds urged under the application are all false and baseless. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal against the order of cancellation of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3123 WP No. 193 of 2024 katha of the plaintiff pertaining to suit schedule property the passed Commissioner, Hassan under R.P. No.61/2016-17 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan. Wherein the Deputy Commissioner has directed the parties to approach the civil court to decide their rights on the suit schedule property. Accordingly the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants. The present matter was initially heard before the D.C and A.C Hassan as such referring the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal as prayed for is not necessary. More over the defendants were also filed a writ petition under W.P. No. 25741/2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of the Karnataka by challenging allotment made in favour of plaintiff. The defendants have withdrawn the said writ petition by filing memo. Since the suit schedule property was allotted by the tribunal in favour of plaintiff as such it is not necessary to again refer the matter to the land tribunal to decide the rights. The defendants only in order to cause delay in disposal of the present suit have filed this false application. As such the defendants are not entitled for any relief as sought under the application. On these grounds the plaintiff sought for dismissal of the present application. I have carefully gone through the documents produced along with the plaint and the defence of the defendants. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property. When the case was posted for further plaintiff's evidence the defendants have come up with this application. Since the plaintiff has approached the court with some relief as such it - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3123 WP No. 193 of 2024 is for the plaintiff to prove his case. More over the plaintiff can't be restrained from approaching the civil courts as civil rights of the plaintiff can't be denied. The defendants have every opportunities to disprove the case of the plaintiff in the present case. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the relief, property this court doesn't find any valid reasons to refer the present case to the Land Reforms Tribunal as sought for. Accordingly this court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.9 filed by the defendants Under Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act is hereby dismissed on cost of Rs.1,000/- Post for plaintiff’s evidence Call on 11.12.2023.” 4. As rightly held by the trial Court, the suit for permanent injunction simpliciter could not be referred to the Land Tribunal having regard to the pleadings of the parties and the rival contentions urged by both sides in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is also pertinent to note that the trial court has come to the correct conclusion that Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case and consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3123 WP No. 193 of 2024 same to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. However all rival contentions on all aspects of the matter on merits are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.