IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.40110/2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
K.PUSHPALATHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS WIFE OF LATE MANJUNATHA GOWDA NO.239/5, GROUND FLOOR 19TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN ROAD MRCR VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 40 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR M/S. LEX NEXUS, ADVs.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU WEST UPPARPET BENGALURU – 560 009 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040 5. SRI.LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WIFE OF Y.P.CHANNAIAH RESIDING AT NO.239/5 FIRST FLOOR 19TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN ROAD MRCR VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 40 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO 4; SRI.R.L.N.MURTHY, ADV., FOR R5;
SRI. M.VINOD KUMAR, ADV. FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON IA 1/17) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 4 TO REMOVE THE SEAL AND LOCK AND KEY OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ALSO; AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER At the outset, it is necessary to clarify that the reason for which the instant petition was entertained and the manner and extent to which it is being considered is already articulated in the order dated 06.10.2017 passed in this proceedings. In that view, I do not find it necessary to advert to those aspects of the matter though, this order is in the nature of disposal of the writ petition. The said order dated 06.10.2017 shall therefore be considered as a part of this order.
2. In that light, the report filed by the Court Commissioner is available before the Court. The report as submitted is elaborate along with the documents to support the observation as made by the Commissioner in his report.
3. At this stage, what is also necessary to be taken note is that the status report as filed by the learned Government Advocate had indicated that the petitioner had identified certain articles which was available in the premises before the respondent-Police was constrained to lock the premises in question as it was beyond their power to decide the matter. In that background, a perusal of the report submitted by the Commissioner in fact would indicate that such observation is the factual situation and it is fortified by the report of the Commissioner. In that regard, a perusal of the documents produced along with the report of the Commissioner and the elaborate report submitted by the Commissioner would leave no doubt to the fact that the petitioner and her son were in possession of the premises and still possess the keys of the cupboards/almirahs which are inside the premises. The things which are available in the premises also belong to the petitioner and the husband of the petitioner late Manjunatha Gowda.
4. In that circumstance, though at this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 seeks to contend that prior to the death, the husband of the petitioner late Manjunatha Gowda was residing in the premises, when there is no dispute to the relationship that the petitioner is the wife of late Manjunatha Gowda and the articles as denoted in the report of the Commissioner belong to that family, any other version to contend that the persons other than the petitioner were in possession of the premises cannot be accepted at this juncture.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would also stress on the settlement deed dated 24.10.2011. It is once again reiterated in addition to the observations that was made in the order dated 06.10.2017 that, this Court at this juncture is not deciding the title nor the manner in which such right is to be exercised. As already indicated, the limited aspect for which this writ petition was entertained was only to ensure that the highhandedness of any party cannot be countenanced and this Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to come to the aid of a person, who is not able to withstand the highhandedness should not feel helpless and the long arm of law should come to their protection to retain the faith of a citizen in judicial process. For the said reason, this Court was constrained to entertain the writ petition instead of taking a technical view that the parties should get their rights adjudicated before the appropriate Civil Court.
6. Further, the course being adopted is also in a circumstance where the jurisdictional Police had gone to the spot and taken note of the situation and have rightly at that point taken a decision not to interfere with the matter to decide the right of the parties. It is in that circumstance, since, the jurisdictional Police had locked the premises and had initiated further action, the status-quo ante is to be restored and the parties are to be allowed to agitate their rights in the appropriate proceedings. To that extent, it is made clear that this order shall not be considered as an order deciding the title or the rights of the parties to thereafter seek appropriate relief before the appropriate Civil Court in a properly constituted suit. The contentions in that regard are left open to all the parties and the Court below shall decide the suit, based on the evidence that would be tendered before it without the instant order weighing in the mind of the Court below relating to the rights of the parties.
7. Before such right is decided by the Civil Court, the possession is to be restored to the petitioner and the same shall continue, until any appropriate orders are made by the Civil Court relating to the rights of the parties.
8. Considering that the petitioner is now required to be put back in possession of the petition schedule property and since, pursuant to the order dated 06.10.2017, the jurisdictional Police is in possession of the key to the premises, the premises shall be opened forthwith by the jurisdictional police on production of a copy of this order and the fact of the possession having been restored to the petitioner shall also be brought to the notice of the jurisdictional Magistrate wherein, at an earlier point the jurisdictional Police had filed the PF report along with the key of the premises.
9. Before parting with this order, it is necessary to observe and appreciate the efforts put in by the learned Commissioner appointed by this Court in preparing the report in an appropriate manner. In that regard, taking note of the detailed report and the documents enclosed thereto, it is necessary to direct the parties to pay a further sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Commissioner.
10. In terms of the above order and with a direction to the respondent-jurisdictional Police to put the petitioner in possession and also to ensure that no harm is caused to her and if any complaint with regard to threat etc., being made by respondent No.3 or any other person, it shall be attended forthwith. The instant petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
In view of disposal of the petition, the need to consider I.A.No.1/2017 does not arise. However, all claims made by the proposed respondent are left open, if the same are to be urged in the civil proceedings.
Sd/- JUDGE ST