Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22745
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anant Ramanath Hegde, J
K. N. Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary – Respondent
RFA No. 1864 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Gopal
For the Respondents: Ransa Vasanthi
When the identity of a suit property is disputed due to overlapping claims between government departments, the court may remand the matter for a fresh, comprehensive survey to demarcate boundaries and establish the precise location of the land.
Headnote:The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent and mandatory injunction regarding agricultural land in Survey No. 26/15, alleging that the Forest Department unauthorisedly dug a trench in the property. The appellant claims the land was granted to the original owner by the Revenue Department from a portion of Survey No. 26 not handed over to the Forest Department. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit property was not identifiable. The primary issue is whether the plaintiff establishes title and possession over the suit property. The court observed that while the Court Commissioner's report identified the property, the basis for such identification was not clearly indicated in the survey sketch. The court reasoned that the most appropriate method to resolve the dispute is to accurately measure the extent of land granted to the Forest Department versus that retained by the Revenue Department to determine the physical location of the suit property. The appeal is allowed in part, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and survey.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims title via registered sale deed and government grant against forest department's claim of ownership. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. trial court dismissed the suit because the identity of the property could not be established. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. parties dispute whether the land falls within the forest department's allotted area or the revenue department's retained area. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. court finds the existing survey report insufficient and calls for precise demarcation to resolve identity issues. (Para 12 , 13 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. matter remanded to trial court for a fresh survey to determine if the land is within forest or revenue boundaries. (Para 18 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.08.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.44/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2018 in O.S. No.44/2013 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga, dismissing the suit for declaration of title and injunction.
2. The plaintiff has also sought the mandatory injunction to close the trench which according to the plaintiff is dug in the property belonging to the plaintiff.
3. The suit property is agricultural land bearing Survey No.26/15 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Aladevarahosuru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk. The boundary of the property is shown as under:
East: Lands of S. Geetha W/o Sridhara,
West: Lands of Auditor Satish,
North: Lands in Sy.No.73 of Chandrakanth and
South: Beaten Track.
4. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 29.08.2005 from the previous owner Neelappa son of Sanna Ningappa. The plaintiff also claims that his vendor got 3 acres of land allotted in Survey No.26/15, in terms of the Government grant dated 12.11.1974. It is submitted that when the property was granted to Neelappa, the plaintiff’s vendor, it was numbered as 26/15. The suit is filed on the premise that the officers of the Forest Department are obstructing the plaintiff's use and occupation of the property and have also unauthorisedly dug the trench in the suit property.
5. The averments in the plaint would also reveal that the total extent of land bearing Survey No.26 referred to above was originally 290 acres and 10 guntas and out of the said extent, 164 acres and 2 guntas was handed over to the Forest Department and remaining extent of 126 acres and 8 guntas is retained by the revenue department. The Revenue department later granted around 96 acres of land to various eligible persons and in the said process, the vendor of the plaintiff namely Neelappa is allotted 3 acres, is the contention.
6. The Divisional Forest Department contested the suit. They claimed that the property bearing Survey No.26, measured 290 acres and 10 guntas. The plaintiff's claim that out of 290 acres and 10 guntas in Survey No.26, the Revenue department has handed over only 164 acres and 2 guntas and remaining 126 acres 8 guntas is retained by the Revenue department is disputed. The Forest Department contended that entire property is handed over to Forest department and Revenue department did not retain any of the property.
7. The Trial Court on 19.06.2013 framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 29-8-2005?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants dug the trenches in the schedule property to fix the boundary?
3. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
4.
