SADASHIVAN Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. The suit for injunction in O. S. No. 130/84 was decreed by the munsiff and Additional JMFC, Tarikere on 22. 10. 86. On appeal in R. A. No. 51/86, the learned civil Judge, Tarikere, dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 5. 2. 1987 confirming the decree the trial Court. Hence, the appeal by the plaintiff.

(2.) PLAINTIFF claims permanent injunction on the ground that he has been in possession and cultivation of the suit land which is 1 acre and 20 guntas in Sy. No. 29 and 30. According to him he has taken the same on lease from the Executive Engineer No. 4, B. R. L. B. C. Division, bhadravathi. Plaintiff has been cultivating the suit land since 18 to 20 years after investing heavy money to bring the same fit for cultivation. He has been paying lease amount to defendant No. 2. As usual the plaintiff cultivated the suit land in 1984. The defendant gave a notice on 27. 9. 84 asking him to vacate the land. On 2. 11. 84 the second defendant sent his men to the suit land and they tresspassed upon the suit land and told the plaintiff that the second defendant will not allow him to reap paddy grown by the plaintiff and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Therefore, the suit is filed for injunction.

(3.) THE defendants who are the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka and the Assistant executive Engineer No. 4. B. R. L. in Bhadravathi Taluk, while admitting the possession of the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff cannot claim to be lessee but only as licensee. The right to cultivate for 11 months from June to May of each year was being auctioned. In pursuance of the notification dated 24. 5. 71 the second defendant invited applications from the public for giving the land for temporary cultivation in strict compliance of the conditions stipulated in the notification and also under the provisions of Section 206 of the Karnataka Public Works departmental Code relating to cultivation of lands belonging to the department. The defendant did not dispose off by auction the right of cultivation for the year 1984-85 and the plaintiff by taking advantage of the fact that he was an employee of the department, tresspassed on the suit land and attempted to cultivate the same. He has no right to cultivate the same and the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. The Courts below dismissed the suit.