IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.1976 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Dr. Rajaram R., S/o late Ramachandrappa, Age 70 years, R/o No.19/1, (82), 13th Cross, 1st Main Road, R. K. Extension, Ward No.2, Srinivasapura Town, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District – 563 135.
… Petitioner (By Sri.A.Mahabaleshwara Bhat, Advocate (Absent)) AND:
1. Sri. N. V. Somashekaraiah, S/o late Shyanubhog Valeppa, Aged about 65 years, R/at Nooravamakalahalli Village, Ronur Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District – 563 135.
2. Sri. Kadirappa, @ G. D. Mookalahalli Kadirappa, S/o Father’s name not known To the plaintiff, Aged about 56 years, First Division Assistant, Srinivasapur Girls High School/ College, 1st Main, R. K. Extension, Srinivasapura Town and Taluk, Kolar District – 563 135.
… Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct to the R-1 and 2 not to interfere and take possession of the property of the petitioner till the completion of this case and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
“i. Issue the direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to interfere and take possession of the property of the petitioner till the completion of this case.
ii. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit this petitioner to continue his possession and enjoyment over the property till the further order from this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice and equity.
iii. It is also prayed that he should not be disturbed over the from the possession and enjoyment of the property by the respondents, and others, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. On perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and taking into account the fact that the petitioner seeks writ against a private individual, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit the representation with regard to his grievance to the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police and the aforesaid authority be directed to consider and decide the representation, which may be submitted by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondents.
3. 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 Mds/-