1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.48346/2017 LB-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. ADAM BI AGED 66 YEARS W/O ANWAD ALI @ ASKAR ALI R/O No.450, NEAR BADA ASHIRA KHAN TURABALI ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA MYSORE, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 021 REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER M. ANWAR @ M. ANWARJI AGED 75 YEARS R/O. No.224, KUBA MASJID ROAD UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570 019.
(BY SRI. M. KRISHNAPPA, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION MYSORE-570 005.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ZONAL COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE MYSORE CITY CORPORATION ZONAL OFFICE No.8 UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570 019.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BLDGS, Dr. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
(BY SRI. A.K. VASANTH, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD:10.8.2017 PASSED BY THE R-1 AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC., THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr. M. Krishnappa, Adv. for Petitioner Mr. A.K. Vasanth, AGA for Respondents 1. This petition has been filed in this Court on 25.10.2017 with the following prayers:-
“ (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate, Writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order dt.10.8.2017 bearing No.Nil passed by the Respondent No.1 as at Annexure- A.
(b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case”.
2. The grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Respondent-Mysore City Corporation is illegally now putting up the boundary wall on the private property of the petitioner and even though the petitioner has filed the police complaint, the Respondents have not taken any action in the matter.
3. During the course of arguments, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit namely O.S.No.872/2016 for declaration and permanent injunction, which is pending in the Court of Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Mysore. He also submitted that in the said civil suit, the Mysore City Corporation is also a defendant. However, the temporary injunction was refused by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 15.12.2016 and even the appeal against that has been dismissed.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present petition is disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioner to file another application before the learned Trial Court in the same civil suit and if necessary, by impleading the parties who are not already the defendants before the learned Trial Court and seek appropriate relief against them.
5. This Court is of the view that the issues relating to the ownership and injunction for protecting the property do not deserves to be scattered to different courts in view of some subsequent developments in the matter. It is expected that the learned Trial Court will consider such fresh application in accordance with law. For a period of one month from today, the parties are directed to maintain the status-quo as it exists today at the site in question.
No order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the Respondents and concerned Trial Court below.
Sd/- JUDGE Srl.