Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sharada @ Sharadamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
WP No. 24884 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 24884 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed
by SMT. SHARADA @ SHARADAMMA
PADMAVATHI B W/O LATE B C KRISHNA
K AGED 56 YEARS
Location: HIGH NO. 9/A, NEW NO.47
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BYLAPPA BUILDING
GAVIPURAM
CHANDRASHEKAR AZAD ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 019.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HANUMANTHANAGARA
POLICE STATION
-2-
WP No. 24884 of 2022
BENGALURU - 560 050.
4. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU -560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2
AND 3 TO GIVE POLICE PROTECTION TO PREVENT THE
ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES BY THE BBMP OR BY ANY OTHER
AUTHORITY OR ANYBODY CLAIMING THROUGH EITHER BBMP
OR FROM ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, FROM INTERFERING WITH
THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND FROM PUTTING UP ANY
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OR FROM CHANGING THE NATURE
OF PROPERTY, AS PER THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE CITY
CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU, IN O.S.NO.2385/1983,
DATED:24.2.1986 AND AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF THE
HONBLE CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.4550/2011
DATED: 31.10.2015, PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE CLAIM
PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER FAMILY
MEMBERS IN INA CR NO.29/1998-99, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE SPL. DY. COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.10,
MEASURING 2 ACRES 20 GUNTAS, GAVIPURAM VILLAGE, NOW
GAVIPURAM GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU, BY CONSIDERING THE COMPLAINT/
REPRESENTATION AS PER THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
DATED:5.12.2022 AND THE COMPLAINT DATED:9.12.2022,
UNDER ANNEXURE-E AND F RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 24884 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by
issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for grant of police
protection to prevent illegal activities by the BBMP or by any
other authority claiming through BBMP concerning the subject
property.
2. Heard Sri Somashekharaiah R.P., learned counsel
appearing for petitioner, Sri M. Vinod Kumar, learned AGA
appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri N.K. Ramesh,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
3. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of certain
property and is recipient of grant of occupancy rights in terms
of the order of the Land Tribunal dated 24-7-1987. The
petitioner has knocked the doors of the Civil Court in OS
No.4550/2011 seeking permanent injunction against the BBMP.
The Civil Court, by its order dated 31st October 2015,
dismissed the suit by the following observations:
"xxx xxx xxx. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for
any permanent injunction against the defendant
restraining him from interfering with his alleged peaceful
WP No. 24884 of 2022
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule
property. Therefore, issue No.1 is answered partly in the
affirmative i.e. the plaintiff is under litigious possession
and his right thereupon has to be adjudicated by the
competent authority before which the case is pending in
that regarding and Issue No.2 is answered in the negative
17. However certain observations is necessary to be made
in connection with the maintaining status-quo in respect
of suit schedule property, thereby no prejudice will be
caused to the plaintiff and defendants and in the interest
of justice and public interest. That defendant has to
maintain status-quo in respect of suit schedule property.
It can use the suit schedule property for public by
allowing the public to use the suit schedule property for
children playground and certain public functions only,
without changing the basic and material identity and
nature of the suit schedule property, till pending disposal
of the case before the appropriate authority/ court,
regarding claim of the plaintiff for occupancy rights.
Hence, these issues are answered accordingly.
18. Issue No.5:- In view of the above discussion and
conclusion arrived at, this court is hereby proceeded to
pass the following:
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
However, the defendant is hereby directed to
maintain status-quo in respect of suit schedule property,
except using the suit schedule property for public by
allowing the public to use the suit schedule property for
children playground and certain public functions only,
without changing the basic and material identity and
nature of the suit schedule property, till pending disposal
of the case before the appropriate authority/ court,
regarding claim of the plaintiff for occupancy rights."
WP No. 24884 of 2022
4. The Civil Court has clearly held that the petitioner is in
litigious possession of the property which has to be adjudicated
only before the competent authority where the case is pending
and therefore, answers the issue in the negative, does not
grant any permanent injunction in favour of the petitioner. But
however, directs maintenance of status quo to the defendant
therein BBMP without changing the nature of the property.
5. The learned counsel Sri N.K. Ramesh, would submit
that, it is for the BBMP to protect its property and the petitioner
has no right to even claim police protection for the said
purpose.
6. The submission merits acceptance in the light of the
order passed by the Civil Court. The learned counsel submits
that BBMP would definitely protect the property and will not
change the nature of the property. Learned counsel further
submits that, it is for the BBMP, and BBMP will protect if it is
the property of BBMP without changing the nature as is
directed by the Civil Court.
WP No. 24884 of 2022
7. The submission is placed on record.
8. Learned AGA at this juncture would submit that police
have considered the request of the petitioner and turned it
down on the ground that matter is subjudice before the
authorities. The said submission is accepted.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
tsn*
