IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NOS.17996-17997 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. M.R. NANJUNDA GOWDA ADVOCATE S/O SRI N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. SMT SHARADA W/O M.R. NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS THE PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 BOTH ARE R/AT NO.718, II A MAIN OMBR LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 043. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI Y R SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI DEEPAK J, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 009. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT PRAMODHINI KISHAN, HCGP) ******* THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RESTRAIN THE R-2 IN TAKING ANY QUASI, JUDICIAL ACTION OR ANY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION INCLUDING TAKING POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY THAT THE R-2 WHO IS ACTED ARBITRARILY IN DEMOLISHING THE STRUCTURES OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WHICH BELONGS TO THE PETITIONERS.
THESE WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER The learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents.
2. The plea of the petitioners is for a mandamus to restrain the 2nd respondent in taking any quasi judicial action or any administrative action, including taking possession of the schedule property and acting arbitrarily in demolishing the structures over the schedule property, which prayer is ostensibly for an injunction.
3. It is contended that without authority of law the respondents are attempting to demolish the schedule property.
4. Assuming it to be so, the appropriate remedy is elsewhere. A decree for an injunction cannot be granted by a Writ Court.
5. In view of the same, the writ petitions being misconceived are rejected with a liberty to exhaust the remedies available in law.
SD/- JUDGE NG* CT: SG