IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.4593 OF 2017 [LB-BMP] BETWEEN:
SRI. M.VISHVESHWARAIAH EDUCATION TURST, REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN TRUST ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.14, R.G.C. CAMPUS, CHOLANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 047.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, P. SADASIVAN, SON OF PADMANABHAN, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS. ... APPELLANT [BY SRI. JANARDHAN G., ADVOCATE] AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRLCE, BENGALURU-560 002.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR STORM WATER DRAINAGE SECTION (EAST), BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX, 9TH FLOOR, BENGALURU-560 011.
3. BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BENGALURU-560 002. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. V.SRINIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3] THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2017 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.42651/2016 [LB-BMP].
* * * * * THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.42651 of 2016 [LB-BMP] with cost of Rs.30,000/-, the writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal.
2. The plea of the writ petitioner is that, notices have been issued by the Police Sub-Inspector, Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police Station, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru, to appear before them and co-operate with the enquiry with regard to the complaint registered against them. In the interregnum, the writ petitioner has filed O.S. No.16359 of 2006 against the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru, before the Court of XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru and it is pending adjudication. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondents had no authority to cause any loss or hardship to the writ petitioner. However, the learned Single Judge held that, the writ petition is premature and misconceived and therefore, dismissed the same with cost. Hence, the present writ appeal.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for.
4. The writ petitioner as well as the respondents are bound to obey the decree to be passed by the Trial Court in the aforesaid suit. It is the Trial Court alone that has jurisdiction to determine the facts with regard to the encroachment of the land and other related issues. Even if the respondents proceeded to hold an enquiry, they cannot compel the writ petitioner nor can they cause any hardship to them. In the circumstances, dismissal of the writ petition with cost by the learned Single Judge would not be appropriate. Under these circumstances, the writ appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.06.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.42651 of 2016 [LB-
BMP] is set aside. It is hereby clarified that, all rights of the parties shall be determined in the aforesaid suit. Therefore, the respondents cannot compel the petitioner to take any action contrary to the proceedings in the aforesaid suit. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Ksm*