IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.37747 OF 2016 AND 51038-51040 OF 2016 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
1. SMT VIMALA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, D/O LATE SHARADAMMA, W/O DR. V G BOMAIAH, R/A NO.32/33, WHEELER ROAD, COX TOWN, BANGALORE-5.
2. SMT KAMALA RAMESH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, D/O OF LATE SHARADAMMA, W/O SRI R RAMESH, R/A NO.92, 2ND CROSS, BHOOPASANDRA MAIN ROAD, RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE-94 3. SMT PRABHAVATHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D/O LATE SHARADAMMA, W/O SRI B H SATISH R/A NO.2, 1ST CROSS, 8TH MAIN, VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-52 4. SMT UMAVATHI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O LATE SHARADAMMA, W/O DR. HANUMANTHAPPA, R/A NO.2-C, NO.22, PRAKRUTHI APAPRTMENTS, ATMANANDA COLONY, SULTHANPALYA, BANGALORE-32 … PETITIONERS (By Mr. KRISHNA KUMAR S.R. ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR MALLESWARAM SUB DIVISION SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, BANGALORE-10 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BANGALORE URBAN DISTRCIT BANGALORE – 01.
4. THE COMMISSINER OF POLICE BANGALORE – 01.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION BANGALORE -01.
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MALLESWARAM SUB DIVISION MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-55 7. T SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMEDAS RESIDING AT NO.337, 5TH CROSS GAYATHRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560021 8. SMT LAKSHMI SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O T SRINIVASAMURTHY RESIDING AT NO.337, 5TH CROSS GAYATHRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560021 … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R1-6 Mr.GOUTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADV. FOR R7 AND R8) - - -
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R-1 to 6 to give police protection to the petitioners against R-7 & 8 and their agents, representatives, supporters, henchmen etc., in respect of the petition schedule property, and etc.
These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Krishna Kumar S.R., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 6.
Sri.Gouthamdev C.Ullal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8.
2. In these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) Direct the respondents 1 to 6 to give police protection to the petitioners against respondents 7 and 8 and their agents, representatives, supporters, henchmen etc., in respect of the petition schedule property by issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction as the case may be;
b) Direct the respondents 1 to 6 to take suitable action against the respondents 7 and 8 and other accused persons pursuant to the police complaint dated 6.3.2016 lodged by the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule property by issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction as the case may be;
c) Grant such other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a decree for declaration and possession has been passed by a Bench of this Court in favour of the petitioners which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners had initiated the execution proceedings. However, small portion on the western side of the property of the petitioners, approximately 1,000 square feet, which belonged to respondent Nos.7 and 8 is yet to be demolished. It is further submitted that the respondents have filed objections in these petitions. They have taken a stand that the aforesaid area is used by them for the purpose of ingress and aggress to their property. It is also submitted that the petitioners be granted liberty to make an application to appoint a Commissioner to ascertain the aforesaid fact and the Executing Court, on the basis of the report submitted by the Commissioner, shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioners, first information report has already been registered against respondent Nos.7 and 8 and charge sheet has also been filed.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petitions with liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the Executing Court for appointment of a Commissioner. Needless to state that the Executing Court, after hearing, shall pass appropriate orders on the application for appointment of the Commissioner and based on the report submitted by the Commissioner, the Executing Court shall proceed further with the execution proceedings in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV