IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.50678 OF 2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ANJINAMMA W/O CHINASINGAHAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 2. SRI DODDANARASIMHAPPA S/O CHINNASINGHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O DODDANARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O ARURU AT & POST, MANDIKAL HOBLI - 561201 CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT (BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M., ADV.) AND:
1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION, GUDIBANDE - 561209 CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT 2. ANUSHA CLAIMS TO BE W/O D BABU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 3. ANJINAMMA W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, … PETITIONERS BOTH ARE R/O ARURU AT & POST, MANDIKAL HOBLI – 561 201 CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R-1 SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADV FOR R-2 & 3) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 TO OBEY THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2017 IN NO. MSC. CR 11/2017-18 PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPUR VIDE ANNEX-B AND PUT THE PETITIONERS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HOUSE BY VACATING THE R-2 AND 3 AND ETC THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Jai Prakash Reddy M., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.Vishwanath R Hegde, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioners is seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to obey the order dated 27.10.2017 in No.MSC.CR/11/2017-18 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Chickballapur vide Annexure-B and put the petitioners in the possession of the house by vacating the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the he be granted with a liberty to make a fresh representation before the competent authority. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that if such a representation is made by the petitioner the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
3. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners that in case a representation is made to the competent authority, the same shall be decided by the competent authority by a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS