IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.1025 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. R. BALASUBRAMANYAM SON OF SRI. RAJARATHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT CHANDRABHAVI MIDIGESHI HOBLI MADUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.
(BY SRI: NAGENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR ...APPELLANT SRI: GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF P.W.D.
VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE HIGHWAYS IMPLIMENTATION PROJECT DIVISION TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU-572 101.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. DEPARTMENT MADUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH MADUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU-572 132.
5. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BEDATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH MADUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.
6. SRI. GOVINDAIAH SON OF SRI. KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT CHANDRABHAVI MIDIGESHI HOBLI MADUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.
7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF SRI. GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT CHANDRABHAVI MIDIGESHI HOBLI MADUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 AND R-5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.32319 OF 2015 (LB-RES) DATED 03.11.2017 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.32319 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge, in dismissing the writ petition by relegating the parties to the Trial Court, the petitioner therein has filed this appeal.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that respondent Nos.6 and 7 are attempting to put up the construction over the property in question. Hence, the instant petition was filed to demolish the same.
3. The learned Single Judge while considering the petition was of the view that the petitioner and others have already filed O.S.No.29 of 2015 before the Court of Civil Judge, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, agitating the claim over the property in question. Therefore, in view of the pendancy of civil suit, the parties are entitled to obtain necessary relief from the said Court.
4. On considering the contentions as well as the order of the learned Single Judge, we find no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The plea of the appellant can very well be agitated in the pending suit or he may even file a separate suit to protect the property in question.
5. Be that as it may, it is not for the writ Court to decide the dispute in question. It is for the Civil Court alone which has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute.
Hence, we find no good grounds to entertain the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, consideration of I.A.No.1 of 2018 is futile. Hence, the same is rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE bgn/-