IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.47502 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. B.G. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE GANGANNA GOWDA R/AT. KALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572126.
(By Mr. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI. K. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS S/O LATE CHENNIGEGOWDA R/AT. No.519, 11TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE-560086.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE TUMKUR-572126.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR TOWN-572126.
(By Mr. K.N. NITISH, ADV., FOR Mr. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV., FOR C/R1 … PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS Mr. Y.D. HARSHA, LEARNED AGA FOR R2 & R3) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 22-9-2018 passed by the maintenance Tribunal, Tumkur (R-2) in case as per Annexure-G and the letter dated 6-10-2018 issued by R-2 to the Chief Police Officer, Tumkur District (the Superintendent of Police, Tumkur) as per Annexure-H dismiss the said petition or pass other suitable orders by allowing this writ petition with costs and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 06.10.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner by which the Chief Police Officer, Tumakuru has been directed to handover the possession of the property in question.
3. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 has filed a suit namely O.S.No.401/2013 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Kunigal, seeking the relief of declaration and possession of land measuring 0.82 guntas of Sy.No.59/1A4 situated at Kallanayakanahalli Village, Huthridurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District. The aforesaid civil suit is pending consideration. During the pendency of the suit, admittedly, the respondent No.1, under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), submitted a letter – Annexure-E to the Assistant Commissioner in which a prayer was made for delivery of the possession of the aforesaid property. Thereupon, the Assistant Commissioner directed the Superintendent of Police, Tumakuru, to ensure that the respondent No.1 is placed in possession of the property in dispute. In the factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the title to the property is in dispute which is pending adjudication in the civil suit in which respondent No.1 himself has sought the relief of possession. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute and until and unless the right of the parties are adjudicated by the Trial Court, the Assistant Commissioner could not have passed the impugned order directing dispossession of the petitioner, that too with the assistance of the police. It is further submitted that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the fact situation of the case.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has supported the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, alternatively it is submitted that the Trial Court be directed to decide the suit expeditiously in a time bound manner.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that, between the parties, the civil suit with regard to the title in respect of the property in question is pending adjudication. In the aforesaid civil suit, the respondent No.1 has sought the relief of possession. The petitioner is admittedly in possession. Pending adjudication of the rights of the parties in the civil suit, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed with the assistance of the police authorities from the property in question in a forceable manner. The impugned order is therefore per se arbitrary and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. The impugned order dated 06.10.2018 is therefore, quashed and set aside. However, the Trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to dispose of the civil suit filed by the respondent No.1 namely O.S.No.401/2013 expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, bearing in mind that the respondent No.1 is a senior citizen.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
8. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV