Full Judgment
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.114781 OF 2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: KEMPANNA S/O ANNAPPA KALASANNAVAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: NEAR RAILWAY STATION, SAVALAGI CROSS KONNUR, TQ: GOKAK, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. - PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI.
2. THE CHIEF OFFICER, PATTAN PANCHAYATH KONNUR,
3. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, GOKAK, TALUK: GOKAK, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
4. JINNAPPA BHIMAPPA CHOUGALA
VINAYAKA BV AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of R/O: JAIN GALLI, KONNUR, Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.09 10:19:15 +0530 - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 & R3; SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.08.2015, 20.08.2015 AND 21.08.2015 VIDE ANNEXURES-F, G & H & ETC. -2- THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner asserts ownership of the land in Sy. No. and the petitioner has filed this writ petition asserting that he has filed different representations with the first respondent to hold an enquiry on the construction by the fourth respondent in his adjacent land in Sy. No. representations. Sri H.M. Dharigond, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is constrained to file
representations because, notwithstanding an interim order
in a suit in OS No. 425/2015 before the competent court, the fourth respondent has proceeded to put up construction without any set back. The petition is filed in the year 2015, and Sri H.M. Dharigond submits that he cannot dispute that -3- during the pendency of this writ petition, the fourth respondent has completed construction and occupied but the suit is still pending adjudication. The learned counsel also submits that this Court must pass just orders to enable the petitioner to workout his remedies in the pending suit. Sri Praveen K. Uppar, the learned AGA, and Sri Bhushan Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the fourth respondents, are heard in the light of these submissions. This Court must opine that if the allegation is that the fourth respondent has put up construction in his property but without a sanctioned plan undermining the petitioner’s right to enjoy his property, the petitioner must workout his remedy in the pending suit, especially with the admitted position that the fourth respondent has continued with construction during the pendency of the suit. The petition stands disposed of accordingly subject to all just liberty. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE BVV LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30