Mangala And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2100 Kant

                           1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH


    WRIT PETITION No.201423/2021 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. MANGALA W/O RAMU HARALE
   @ SUSLAD, AGE: 58 YEARS,
   OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
   R/O SUSLAD, TQ. JATT,
   DIST. SANGLI, (MAHARASHTRA STATE)
   PRESENTLY AT JIGJIVANAGI VILLAGE,
   TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA.

2. ANIL S/O RAMU HARALE @ SUSLAD
   AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
   R/O SUSLAD, TQ. JATT,
   DIST. SANGLI (MAHARASHTRA STATE)
   PRESENTLY AT JIGJIVANAGI VILLAGE,
   TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR.
                                       ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.P.AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
   DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
   VIKAS SOUDHA,
   BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
   VIJAYAPURA-586101.
                            2




3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
   SUB DIVISION, INDI, TQ. INDI,
   DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209.

4. THE TAHASILDAR
   CHADCHAN, TQ. CHADCHAN,
   DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586205.

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
   VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT,
   VIJAYAPURA-586101.

6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
   CHADCHAN PS, CHADCHAN
   TQ. CHADCHAN,
   DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586205.

7. JAGADEV S/O SIDARAYA SURYAVANSHI
   AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
   R/O KIRTI NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA,
   TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R6;
 SRI BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R7)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-
E,   VIZ.,   THE   ORDER   DATED    22.04.2021    BEARING
NO.MAG/VINIDI/19/2020-21/167     PASSED   BY   RESPONDENT
NO.3 DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.4-TAHASILDAR, CHADCHAN
TO TAKE ACTION AS PER THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
1973 AND ETC.


      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                     3




                               ORDER

In this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the

order dated 22.04.2021 (Annexure-E) passed by the third

respondent and order dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure-F)

passed by the fourth respondent.

2. Facts in nut a shell are that the petitioners

have filed O.S.No.13/2011 against seventh respondent and

others, seeking relief of declaration of title and

consequential relief of permanent injunction against

defendant Nos.1 to 10 therein. The seventh respondent

has purchased the schedule property during the pendency

of the suit on 08.11.2011. The said suit came to be

dismissed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the

same, petitioners have filed RFA No.200115/2018 before

this Court and the appeal is pending consideration before

this Court. In the meanwhile, the seventh respondent

addressed letter to the third respondent herein seeking

protection and the third respondent vide Annexure-E

directed the fourth respondent to consider the case of the

seventh respondent, in turn, the fourth respondent

addressed letter to the sixth respondent to provide

protection to the seventh respondent and to file a report.

The said orders are sought to be quashed in this writ

petition.

3. Sri D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel for the

petitioners contended that since Regular First Appeal is

pending consideration before this Court, the revenue

authorities have no jurisdiction to direct the police to give

protection to seventh respondent. In this regard, he relied

upon the judgment of this Court in the case of

Smt. Honnamma vs. State of Karnataka and others

reported in AIR 2000 Kant. 245 and argued that the

impugned order requires to be set aside in this writ

petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

contesting seventh respondent submitted that the seventh

respondent being the purchaser of the land for valuable

consideration is in possession of the land in question and

as such, he argued that writ petition deserves to be

dismissed.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate

argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders

passed by the respondent-authorities.

6. In the light of the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in

dispute that the petitioners herein have assailed the

judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in

O.S.No.13/2011 dated 20.03.2018 in RFA No.200115/2018

and the same is pending consideration before this Court.

In that view of the matter, if either of the parties are

interfering with the subject matter of the suit, they shall

approach this Court in RFA No.200115/2018 seeking

appropriate remedy by filing necessary application.

Therefore, I am of the view that the third and fourth

respondents have no jurisdiction to direct the respondent-

Police to take action in the matter which is sub judiced

before this Court.

7. In that view of the matter, writ petition is

allowed. Order dated 22.04.2021 (Annexure-E) passed by

the third respondent and order dated 25.05.2021

(Annexure-F) passed by the fourth respondent are

quashed. Liberty is reserved to the parties to approach

this Court as observed above, if so advised.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB*