IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No. 2761/2012 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI MUNISWAMY S/O VEERASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT PURADALA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI J N NAVEEN, ADV. FOR SRI A NAGARAJAPPA, ADV. FOR PETITIONER) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. THE TAHSILDAR SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 3. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SANNA MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2ND CROSS, MILLA GHATTA SHIVAMOGGA CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 4. SMT CHINNAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2ND CROSS, BASAVANAGUDI SHIVAMOGGA CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T S MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI S V PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R3 AND R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DTD.2.6.10 ISSUED BY THE R2 TAHSILDAR, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, VIDE ANNEX-G.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the direction/notice issued by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Shimoga Taluk dated 02.06.2010 to the Police Sub-Inspector, Tunganagar Police Station at Shimoga.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the land in Sy.No.127 to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of Anupinakatte of Shimoga Taluk was granted in favour of petitioner’s father on 15.12.1994. Subsequent to the grant, all the revenue records were standing in the name of petitioner’s father. The petitioner filed O.S.No.13/2007 before the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Shimoga seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against one Marappa and Nagamma from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, one Smt.Chinnamma has filed Regular Appeal No.135/2008 before the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Shimoga and the said appeal came to be allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, holding that it is a nullity, passed against the dead persons. It transpires subsequently, the Tahsildar-2nd respondent has requested the police sub- inspector, Tunganagar police station, Shimoga to provide protection to evict the petitioner from the suit schedule land said to be in compliance of decree and judgment in R.A. No.135/2008. Hence, this writ petition.
3. It is not in dispute that in R.A.No.135/2008 proceedings, the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Shimoga set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.13/2007 dated 17.09.2007. No request was made by the respondents 3 and 4 before the Tahsildar seeking possession of the lands in question.
4. On the contrary, it is the contention of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that they are in possession of the property in question whereas the petitioner also claims to be in possession of the subject matter of this petition. The said factual aspects can not be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction.
5. Be that as it may, respondent No.2, the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to request the police sub- inspector to provide the police protection to evict the unauthorized occupants of the property in question. Even otherwise, the said request made on 02.06.2010 indicates that there was a request made on 29.04.2010 to the concerned authority to evict the unauthorized persons from the land in question in terms of the order passed in R.A.No.135/2008. Undisputedly, no such direction was issued by the lower appellate Court for the eviction of the unauthorized persons from the disputed property.
6. The circumstances aforesaid establishes that the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing requisition to the police sub-inspector and the same can not be sustained, accordingly stands quashed.
7 It is needless to observe that the parties are at liberty to resort to appropriate proceedings for establishment of their rights, if any, in accordance with law and seek possession of the property in question, if they are entitled to.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-