IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.25951 OF 2014 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
EVANGELISTIC COMPANIONS OF INDIA TRUST REP. BY MANAGING TRUSTEE W. THOMPSON SMITH S/O MR. Z. WILLIAM JAMES AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.1277, 37TH CROSS 19TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK H.B.R LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 043 …PETITIONER (BY SHRI. D.R. SUNDARESHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. TAHASILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE 3. INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAMAMURTHYNAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560 016 4. SMT. V. RUKMANI W/O N. KRISHNAMURTHY D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.258, RUKMINI NIVASA VENKATARAMANAPPA LAYOUT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 016 5. VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE DODDACHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS NO.260, VENKATARAMANAPPA LAYOUT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 016 6. SRI. VENKATESH V S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.260, VENKATARAMANAPPA LAYOUT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 016 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1-R3; SHRI. A. CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SHRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR 5 & R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO R-6 BE RESTRAINED BY A WRIT OF PROHIBITION FROM INTERFERING IN ANY MANNER WITH ORPHANAGE CENTRE OR HOME SITUATED IN SITE NO.4 AND 5 OF HORAMAVU VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, FORMED IN SITE NO.4,5,13,14,17 AND 18 PROTECTING THE ORPHANAGE HOME WITH SUCH OTHER ORDER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Shri D.R.Sundaresha, learned advocate for the petitioner and Smt. Shweta Krishnappa, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3, Shri A.Chandrachud, learned advocate for respondent No.4 and Shri Prakash T.Hebbar, for respondents No.5 and 6.
2. Shri D.R.Sundaresha, leaned advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is owner of Site Nos.4, 5, 13, 14, 17 and 18 formed in Survey No.88/2 in Horamavu, Ramamurthinagar, Bengaluru. The Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk(respondent No.2) has issued a notice dated 17.05.2014 to produce sanctioned plan in respect of the proposed building. The Police Inspector (respondent No.3) issued notice dated 31.05.2014 stating that petitioner had attempted to put up illegal construction. It is stated in the notice that, if any law and order were to be breached due to alleged illegal construction, petitioner would be held responsible for the same.
3. Shri Sundaresha submitted that notices issued by the Tahasildar and the Police Inspector are contrary to law and therefore, writ of prohibition may be issued.
4. Learned AGA for the State argued justifying notices and submitted that notices in question have been issued to maintain law and order which had arisen due to illegal construction put up by the respondent.
5. Shri A.Chandrachud, learned advocate for respondent No.4 submitted that the property in question belongs to respondent No.4. Parties are agitating their rights before this Court in the Regular First Appeal. Thus, Petitioner has no title to the property.
6. I have carefully considered submissions of learned advocates for respective parties and perused the records.
7. In substance, the prayer made by the petitioner is in the nature of seeking injunction against the respondents. Learned AGA has made a categorical statement that notices have been issued as law and order was likely to be breached due to illegal construction sought to be put up by the petitioner.
8. The submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner and fourth respondent lead to an inference that private parties are agitating with regard to title of the property. There are claims and counter claims with regard to title and sanction by the appropriate authority to put up construction.
9. In the circumstances, prayer sought for, cannot be granted. In view of the submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner and private respondents, the dispute, inter se between parties will have to be resolved in the Civil Court in appropriate proceedings.
So far as notices are concerned, they are issued in the year 2014 and according to the learned AGA, notices were issued keeping in view the law and order situation at the material point of time. The Tahsildar in his notice has called upon the petitioner to furnish sanctioned plan and police have stated that in the event of any untoward incident, petitioner would be responsible. In any event, five years have elapsed from the date of issue of said notices. It is settled that police shall not interfere in any civil dispute. However, in the event of any law and order situation, based on the complaint, police will have to investigate the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no specific directions with regard to notices are expedient at this point of time. Accordingly, petitions are disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner work out its remedy regarding title and possession before appropriate forum.
Petition disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.