SMT CHANNAMMA W/O LATE UMAPATHI MYGERI ALIAS GURIKAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 107537 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. CHANNAMMA
W/O LATE UMAPATHI MYGERI ALIAS GURIKAR
AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. HIREMEGERI VILLAGE, TQ. YELBURGAK,
DIST. KOPPAL.
TH
NOW AT 15 WARD, SARADARGALLI,
KOPPAL-583231.

2. SHANKARPPA
S/O DODDABASAPPA MYGERI ALIAS GURIKAR
AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED SERVANT,
R/O HIREMEGERI VILLAGE,
TQ. YELBURGAK, DISTRICT .KOPPAL.
NOW AT GAVISIDDESHWAR NAGAR,
RD
3 CROSS, NEAR ITI COLLEGE,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

3. SMT. CHANNAMMA
W/O LATE SHAMBULINGAPPA MYGERI @ GURIKAR
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. HIREMEGERI VILLAGE,
TQ. YELBURGAK, DISTRICT. KOPPAL.
TH
NOW AT 15 WARD, SARADARGALLI, KOPPAL-583231.
…PETITIONERS











SAROJA
HANGARAKI

Digitally signed by
SAROJA HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ,
BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583232.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024



3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL DISTRICT- KOPPAL-583232.

4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583231.

5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
KOPPAL DIVISION, KOPPAL-583232.

6. THE TAHSILDAR
YELBURGA TALUKA, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
7. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
GRAM PANCHAYATH,
HIREMYGERI, TQ. YELBURGA,
DIST. KOPPAL-583232.

8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KALYANA KARNATAKA ROAD
TRANSPORT LIMITED (KKRS- LIMITED),
WORKING DIVISION-BALLARI DIST -PIN CODE-583101.

9. SHIVAYYA GADADAR
CONTRACTOR -PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT
POST KADIVAL, MALAGATTI,
TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583277.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 AND R6;
SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R7;
SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
SRI. ABHISHEK L. KALLED, ADVOCATE FOR R9;
NOTICE TO R5 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 CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT
AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED WORK ORDER BEARING
NO.Sanke:KKRS/KNA/BV/TECHANICAL/781/2024-25 DATED
23/25/09/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 8 TO THE
RESPONDENT NO. 9 SAME IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024



THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER


1. Petitioners claiming to be the owners of open plot
bearing No.139 situated at Hiremyageri Village within the
limits of Hiremyageri Village Gram Panchayat, are before
this Court, being aggrieved by the work order dated
23/25.09.2023 as per Annexure-E issued by respondent
No.8 in favour of respondent No.9, for the purpose of
construction of Bus stand.


2. Case of the petitioners is:
2.1 That they have been in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the aforesaid property as absolute owners
thereof. That there was certain interference by some
persons with vested interest into their peaceful
possession and enjoyment, constraining the petitioners
to file a suit in O.S.No.38/2005 seeking relief of
permanent injunction.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


2.2 That the said suit came to be decreed granting relief
of permanent injunction by judgment and decree dated
13.08.2012. Thus, petitioners have been in possession
and enjoyment of the said property in terms of the said
judgment and decree.

2.3 Things stood thus, respondent No.8 without any right
and interest over the property belonging to the
petitioners, had issued the work order in favour of
respondent No.9 for the purpose of construction of bus
stand on the property belonging to the petitioners.

2.4 That petitioners approached respondent No.8
requested withdrawal of the work order and to stop the
illegal construction of the bus stand on their property
which was rejected. Petitioners filed their objections
before respondents 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 objecting for
construction of the bus stand over their property and
that petitioners had obtained information under the Right
to Information Act regarding the ownership of
respondent No.8 over the property, to which there has
been no reply. That the respondent No.8 without

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


following due process of law and in a highhanded
manner proceeded to issue work order to respondent
No.9 to construct bus stand in the open plot belonging to
the petitioners. Thus, petitioners being absolute owners
in possession of the land cannot be deprived of their
right to enjoy the said property, without due process of
law constraining them to file the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners reiterating the aforesaid
averments and taking this Court through the records
submits:
3.1 That the petitioners have been in possession and
enjoyment of the subject property till date and the
respondent authorities without acquiring the said land
cannot divest the petitioners of their entitlement. He
relies upon the judgment dated 13.08.2012 passed in
O.S.No.38/2005 produced at Annexure-C.

3.2 He also relies upon the Khatha Register Extract
issued by Hiremyageri Gram Panchayat for the year

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


2024-2025 reflecting the names of the petitioners as the
owners of the property in question.

3.3 He then relies upon the representation given by the
petitioners to the respondent authorities. Thus, he
concludes by stating that the respondent authorities
have no right under law to utilise the property belonging
to the petitioners without following the due process of
law by acquiring the property in the manner known to
law and by paying the compensation to petitioners.
Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

4. Per contra , learned HCGP referring to the statement of
objections filed on 01.04.2026 at the outset submits:

4.1 That the petitioners have not only suppressed the
true and material facts before this Court but have also
suppressed and misled the respondent authorities by
deliberately, falsely contending to be the owners of the
property despite the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.38/2005 having been set aside and the suit filed

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


by the petitioners having been dismissed by judgment
and decree dated 21.09.2017 in R.A.No.32/2012.

4.2 That the petitioners have not whispered about the
said judgment and decree passed in the R.A.No.32/2012
as far back as in the year 2017.

4.3 He also refers to the representation made by the
petitioners as per Annexures-F to K of the writ petition
dated 28.11.2024 and points out even as in the year
2024 petitioners are continuing to represent themselves
to be the owners of the property having been allegedly
declared so in terms of the judgment and decree dated
13.08.2012 passed in O.S.No.38/2005 deliberately
suppressing the subsequent judgment and decree passed
in R.A.No.32/2012.

4.4 That petitioners have no share, right, title and
interest of any nature whatsoever in respect of the
property over which the respondent No.8 and respondent
No.9 are proposing to put up construction of the bus
stand.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition.

5. Sri.Prashant S.Hosamani learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.8 supplementing the submissions
made by learned HCGP brings to the notice of this Court
documents produced at Annexures- R2 and R3 to
contend that the Gram Panchayat has submitted a report
stating the property being claimed by the petitioners
bearing No.139 is different and distinct from the property
over which the proposed construction is going to be
undertaken which is Sy.No.147.

5.1 He also submits that in the report the concerned
authorities have stated that there is no existence of
property bearing No.139. Thus, he submits that
petitioners have no semblance of right, title and interest
over the property over which the respondent No.8 is
proposing to put up construction.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


6. Sri. Abhishek L. Kalled, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.9 referring to his statement of
objections submits:
6.1 That the case of the petitioners of they being the
owners of the subject property has been elaborately
dealt with in the regular appeal in R.A.No.32/2012.
Referring to paragraphs 18 to 21 of the said Judgment,
learned counsel pointed out that the property being
claimed by the petitioners has held to be non-existent by
the First Appellate Court and without petitioners
establishing their right, title and interest cannot cause
obstructions or impediment in respondent No.9
proceeding with the construction work assigned by
respondent No.8.
Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition.

7. Heard and perused the records.

8. It is settled position of law, that the party seeking
invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to
come with clean hands. If it is found that the party

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


invoking the equitable jurisdiction has deliberately
suppressed the material facts has to be dealt with in the
manner known to law.
9. Perusal of the petition indicate petitioners has spoken
only with regard to judgment and decree obtained by
them in O.S.No.38/2005 and stops at that and doesn't
speak/disclose anything whatsoever with regard to the
subsequent judgment and decree passed in
R.A.No.32/2012. The said Judgment in R.A.No.32/2012
was passed as far back as on 21.09.2017 in that
petitioners have been held to be not entitled for the
property claimed thereunder. At paragraphs 18 to 21 of
the said Judgment, the First Appellate Court has
elaborately dealt with the claim of the petitioners as well
as the Commissioner's report submitted therein to come
to the conclusion that the property being claimed by the
petitioners is different from the one which is subject
matter of the said suit. It is under those circumstances
the trial Court and the First Appellate court have come to
the conclusion that the description of the suit schedule
property given by the petitioners was false and

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


unjustifiable and has accordingly dismissed the suit by
allowing the said appeal. This aspect of the matter has
not been brought on record by the petitioners in the
instant petition.

9. That apart as rightly pointed out by learned HCGP
petitioners have continued to represent even before the
respondent Revenue authorities that they are the owners
of the property in question pursuant to the judgment and
decree dated 13.08.2012 passed in O.S.No.38/2005.
Thus the malafide and ulterior intent of the petitioners in
misleading not only this Court but also the revenue
authorities is writ large. On this count alone the petition
is required to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
Nonetheless this Court after hearing learned counsel for
the petitioners has bestowed its consideration.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also furnished a
memo dated 25.10.2025 along with certain revenue
documents. Document No.1 at page No.1 is a revenue
extract mentioning the property as Plot No.130.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


Document at page No.3 of the said memo is another
extract mentioning the property as No.139. Document
No.4 is property register extract mentioning the property
as No.139.

11. On a query by this Court as to the basis on which the
property claimed as 130 being referred to as 139,
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has
no answer for the same. The judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.38/2005 was against certain private
individuals restraining them from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property
claimed by the petitioners. The description of the
property in the said suit is as under:
SUIT SCHEDULE E PROPERTY

“That, the Plot hearing HireMyageri, Gram
Panchayath:No:139, measuring East-115, West-445,
North 528’ and South-285, situated at Hire Myageri
Village in Yelburga Taluka, bounded by the following
boundaries;

East : Open Plot belongs to School.
West : P.W.D Road
North : Open Plot belongs to Bhute.
South : Open Plot belongs to Ullagaddi Family.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


12. An appeal filed by the private defendants therein in
R.A.No.32/2012 has been allowed by judgment and
decree dated 21.09.2017. At paragraphs 18 to 21, the
first appellant Court has held as under:
"18. In this case the specific case of the plaintiffs was that
they were in exclusive possession of the suit schedule
plot. The plaintiffs in order to prove their contention got
examined plaintiff No.2 among them and also got
examined two witnesses and got marked Ex.P-1 to 3. The
trial court relying on the certified copy of the mutation
register extract relating to the suit schedule property
gave a findings that the plaintiffs are in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit plot as on the date
of the suit. However, the trial court had totally ignored
court commissioner’s report and evidence of court
commissioner who is examined as WA-1. The court
Commissioner in his report submitted that on the Eastern
side the suit property is measuring 126 feet, towards
Western side the suit property is measuring 250 feet, on
the Northern side the suit property is measuring 274 feet,
on the Southern side the suit property is measuring 150
feet. However the extent of property mentioned by the
plaintiffs in the schedule of the plaint is 115 feet towards
East, 445 feet towards West, 528 feet towards North, 285
feet towards South of the suit schedule property. There is
totally difference in the extent of the property as
mentioned in the suit schedule and that of the court
commissioner’s report. The perusal of the court
commissioner report shows that the plaintiffs have
mentioned excess property in the schedule than that is
actually available in the said plot. The learned Civil Judge,
Yelburga at page No.17 of his judgment clearly mentioned
that the measurement mentioned in the commissioner’s
report is not tallying with the measurement as stated by
the plaintiffs in the schedule. They sought for injunction
to the more extent of property than they are in actual
possession. At this juncture it is very pertinent to mention
here that even after receiving the said report of court
commissioner, the plaintiffs have not at all got amended
their plaint so as to claim permanent injunction in respect
of the properties identified by the court commissioner.
The report of the court commissioner is further put to
proof by examination of the court commissioner. Even

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


after filing of the said court commissioner report and
examination of the court commissioner, the plaintiffs have
not at all made any effort to get their plaint amended.
The trial court record clearly shows that the plaintiffs
have not at all made any effort at least file necessary
application seeking the permission of the court to get
their plaint amended so as to suit to the commissioner’s
report. But inspite of that the trial court had granted the
permanent injunction in respect of the properties shown
in the court commissioner report.

19. It is settled principle of law that what is pleaded and
what is claimed by the plaintiffs can be granted by the
court. In this case the plaintiffs had not at all claimed any
relief of permanent injunction with regard to the extent of
property as shown in the court commissioner’s report.
Under such circumstances granting the relief of
permanent injunction in respect of extent of property that
is mentioned in court commissioner report was not
proper. The court cannot bifurcate the extent of property
and grant injunction in respect of the extent that is
covered under commissioner’s report. If permanent
injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs based on
court commissioner’s report there is every chance of
misuse of the decree of permanent injunction to the
excess extent other than claimed in the plaint. Therefore,
the plaintiffs ought to have get their plaint amended so as
to get relief of permanent injunction against the
defendants.

20. But in this case the plaintiffs have not at all filed
necessary application before the trial court to get their
plaint amended. The cross examination of PW-1 and
report of the court commissioner as well as evidence of
the court commissioner CW-1 makes it very clear that the
plaintiffs were not in possession of the total extent of suit
plot. The plaintiffs have failed to prove their peaceful
possession and enjoyment over entire extent of suit plot
as on the date of the suit. Hence I have answered
point No.1 in the Negative.

21 . Point No.2: In this case the plaintiffs have failed to
prove their exclusive possession over the entire extent of
suit plot. The report of court commissioner makes it very
clear that the plaintiffs are not in exclusive possession of
entire extent of property. The trial court had also came to
the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not in possession of
entire extent of suit plot but in possession of the
properties that is mentioned in the court commissioner’s

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


not to have granted the relief of permanent injunction
against the defendants. The interference to the suit
schedule properties must be in respect of whole extent of
property mentioned in the suit schedule of the plaint. The
burden to prove exclusive possession of the suit schedule
property was always on the plaintiffs. If the exclusive
possession as on the date of the suit is proved by the
plaintiff, then only they can be claim relief of permanent
injunction against the defendants. But in this case the
plaintiffs had failed to prove their exclusive possession
over total extent of property. Under such circumstances
the averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint and in
the evidence can be said to be not proved by the
plaintiffs. Therefore the interference by the defendants
was also not clearly proved by the plaintiffs. Until and
unless the plaint was got amended the plaintiffs could not
locate their property properly. Under such circumstance if
the court grants injunction against the defendants, then
there would be every possibility of misuse of the order of
permanent he this case there was no specific relief by the
plaintiffs to claim the relief of permanent injunction
against he defendants in respect of the properties as
identified by court commissioner. Therefore I am of the
opinion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove alleged
interference by the defendants. Hence I have answered
point No.2 in the Negative. "


and consequently allowed the appeal setting aside the
judgment and decree dated 13.08.2012 passed in
O.S.No.38/2005 and has also dismissed the suit.
Admittedly, petitioners have taken no steps thereafter
either asserting their right or challenging the said regular
appeal. Clearly petitioners have accepted the said
judgment and decree not holding them either the owners
or in possession of the said property. This being the fact

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


the petitioners have made bold to file the present
petition asserting their right of they being the owners of
the property pursuant to the said judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.38/2005. This is nothing but misuse
and abuse of the due process of this Court. In the
absence of petitioners establishing any semblance of
right over the property in respect of which the
respondent No.8 has issued the work order in favour of
the respondent No.9 the contention of the petitioners
that the respondent authorities cannot proceed without
acquiring the property cannot be heard.

13. On the other hand, as per the stand taken by the
respondent-State in their statement of objections at
paragraph Nos.7 and 8 that the construction is on the
property bearing Sy.No.147//1 and 147//2 which
totally measures 16 guntas and the same does not form
part of the property being claimed by the petitioners. It
is further contended that respondent No.7 has granted
permission for the purpose of construction of the bus
stand. That the concerned Gram Panchayat of

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17569
WP No. 107537 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020217322024


Hiremyageri Village has clarified that the said property in
Sy.No.147 standing in the name and the ownership of
the Education department/Block Education Officer.
Annexures-R2, R3 and R4 to the statement of objections
supports the stand taken by the respondent-State.

14. In that view of the matter petition lacks merit, the
same is dismissed.


Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE


SBN
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27