Sri. Govind S/O Ramappa Koti And ... vs The Thasildar And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4143 Kant

                              1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

             W.P.NO.206967/2014 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. Sri Govind S/o Ramappa Koti
   Occ: Agriculture
   R/o Badanihal, Tq. Jewargi,
   Dist : Gulbarga.

2. Arun S/o Jambu Pawar,
   Occ :Agriculture
   R/o Badanihal, Tq :Jewargi,
   Dist : Gulbarga.
                                            .... Petitioners

(By Sri I.R.Biradar, Advocate)


AND:


1. The Thasildar,
   Jewargi, Dist :Gulbarga.

2. Sri Pandit s/o Ramappa Koti,
   Occ : Lecturer in English,
   Government P.U.College, Karkal,
   Tq : Karlkal, Dist : Dudupi - 576 101.
                               2




3. The Sub Inspector of Police,
   Nelogi P.S., Tq : Jewargi,
   Dist : Gulbarga.

                                            ... Respondents

(By Viranagouda M.Biradar, AGA R1 & R3;
R2 served)

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of a
certiorari and to quash the order dated 20.11.2014 passed
by the 1st respondent in No.Kan/Danda/2014-15 produced
at Annexure-D.

     This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group, this day the court made the following:-

                            ORDER

The petition is filed questioning Annexure-D which is

the communication addressed by Tahasildar, Jewargi to

the Police Inspector, Nelogi. This communication dated

20.11.2014 makes reference to the decree passed in

Original Suit No.130/2010 on the file of the court of Civil

Judge, Jewargi. From the decree passed in the

aforementioned proceedings which is produced at

Annexure-B, it is seen that injunction is granted against

the present petitioners restraining them from interfering in

the plaintiff's possession of property bearing Sy.No.3/A

measuring 17 acres 23 guntas.

2. Based on the said decree, the Tahasildar on an

application filed by the plaintiff in the said case, has

requested the jurisdictional police to take appropriate

action and to report. There is no direction in Annexure-D

to the police to provide police protection to the plaintiff in

O.S.No.130/2010.

3. Under the circumstances, this court does not

find any reason to entertain the writ petition for the simple

reason that in Annexure-D is only a request to the police

to consider the request of the present respondent No.2

seeking police protection. Nothing is forthcoming as to

what happened to the request made by the Tahasildar

pursuant to Annexure-D.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also

submit that the Regular Appeal No.106/2013 is pending

challenging the judgment and decree passed in

O.S.No.130/2010 referred above.

5. Under these circumstances, this court finds

that the petition is premature as Annexure-D is only a

recommendation and it is not an order passed against the

present petitioners.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sn