WP No.60032 /2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD DATED THES THE 23% DAY OF' FEBRUARY,_.$§'bH10Cff: f _ BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SuBxgIASvH"3..":AD1'" WRIT PETITION N0.6O032_/2010 (GM--cPby 'C BETWEEN: REC' 2 C I 1 1.
THE SECRETARY _ J p V . ‘
T.B.BOARD, T.B.DAM HQSPET7’
2. THESUPERIN-TENDENT”:E1~§:31.§:EfER V CC” 2
H w AND H c;:DD1v1.s1QH_ ”
T.B.DAMgH'0'E,pET';~_'_ ' » 3. THE
H Wa_AND H ‘L[_..C_2ES3vEViS4IC)N
T.B.DA1Vi HOSPETT’ ‘
4. THE sU’BT.14D1v1é;’io’NALQTEICER
H ‘L’.’..,AND H 1,, C-DIVISEON
T.T3.DAM HDSPET _
» j’~THE.,SEcTi0N OFFICER
” w.AN_«D DIVISION
~. T;.E_D’AM.H’QsPET
fa. THE EENi’bR WORK INSPECTOR
I-I WAND H L C DEVISION
” T..4_B.DAM I-IOSPET. …PETITIONERS
” SRi.MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV)
VeOnf1r”Ifiedi..”by ‘Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
WP No.60032/2010
AND:
BKIRANKUMAR
S/O B ADI NARAYAN (DRIVER)
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCBUSINES
R/O I-I.NO.D–72 OFFICIAL COLONY
‘I’.B.BOARD, TB. DAM, I-IOSPET.
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDERAARTICLES :I2e._AND 227 ;
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QIIAsI~I~
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 4/ 10 /2008 PASSED THE A3131,
AND JMF–c,e”~I=IOsPET ON I-,I.’A.’NO..I–I IN = ‘
CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN) % V
O.s.NO.223/2008 VIDE ANNEXUREAAND ALSOQUASH THE
IMPUONED ORDER D’I’D.,—- .20/8/0–9.fF’ASSED BY._THfE ADDL
CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) HOSPET IN MA NQ..1?”~-,[2008 ANNEXURE–
B AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA Nc;u.II”AI~ID ETO,
THIS PETITION c:OI\/II;~.I;(:r_’ -ON IFQR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY;,T’IIE’:COiIII<T IViA'D.E«T_HE FOLLOWING:
. ' ' '
1. This pIain’tif_fs’:_Dpetifienriagainst; the Order passed by Civil
Judge [.-Jr.Dn.) “H_Ospe.i£, I11 ‘0’;s.No.223/2008 dated 04.10.2008
Hospet in M.A.NO.17/2008
‘d.autédd’_20 ” ~_
I’.”P1ai;91:t.ifi’s’: has filed application for temporary injunction
I Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 interalia restraining the
.’_«1~;ie”§efici2Int from putting up Construction Over the suit schedule
I –j’.4:”p1*OVperty. Before the trial court, the defendant produced the
‘
…RE.sPON.DENTS I
t
‘\
WP No.60032/2010
material to show that he is in possession for more than 40 years
and the trial court accepting the material producedv».loyy_:iitl1e
defendant found that, the plaintiffs have not _
facie case for grant of temporary injunction and.r’ejec:tcdi’the’–said
application. The Appellate Court ialsg-..y5é’–appr»éc’iating___
material produced by both the parties clisirnissed t!.1e’i’.a&ppeal._ii;
3. Learned counsel for it is a g
overnment property and “no right, title and
interest over the’.sarne._ did not produce
any material Suhpseiduently, they tried to
produce not satisfy for grant of
temporary,’ defendant produced some
documents tiiyshovwiiithatt lf193hi’:I3 in possession for more than 40
.years…~.i{Under thesepcircumstances, temporary injunction has
“‘be»sn’gran._tedr, lfirnd no grounds to interfere with the concurrent
findings; iPetipt.io1i,’i’s dismissed.’
Sc\i”:”:.,
‘$0,396