IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.11343 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
Sri.Ghouse Peer Khan, S/o late Peer Khan, Aged about 52 years, R/a G.H.Risala, Nagavalli Post, Hebbur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District – 571 120 … Petitioner (By Sri.Fayaz Sab B.G, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Education, M.S.Building, Dr.Ambedkar Vedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Deputy Director, Department of Public Instructions, Tumakuru District, Tumakuru – 572 101.
3. The Head Master, Government Higher Primary Urdu School, Kumbi Palya, Hebbur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 302.
4. The Police Sub-Inspector, Hebbur Police Station, Hebbur, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 301. (By Sri.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, AGA) … Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the case; direct the R-2 and 3 not to grab/encroach/trespass over the schedule property which is exclusively belongs to the petitioner without following land acquisition rules and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Fayaz Sab B.G, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to encroach over the schedule property, which exclusively belongs to the petitioner without following Land Acquisition Rules. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to respondent No.3 to take appropriate action against the persons, who are trying to disturb the law and order situation in the locality pertaining to the schedule property.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are trying to illegally encroach the property belonging to the petitioner and a complaint has been filed in this regard. However, no action has been taken by the jurisdictional police.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Police Authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the issue pertaining to title or any issue with regard to encroachment.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides.
6. Whether or not respondent Nos.2 and 3 are trying to encroach the property belonging to the petitioner? and whether or not the petitioner is the owner of the property in question? cannot be adjudicated in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the aforesaid issue requires adjudication of the question of facts.
7. In the fact situation of the case, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-