Gururaj Naik vs The Superintendent Of Police And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7121 Kant

                                                -1-
                                                  NC: 2023:KHC-K:8052-DB
                                                          WA No. 200135 of 2023




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                             PRESENT

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                                               AND
                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                           WRIT APPEAL NO.200135 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)

                      BETWEEN:


                      GURURAJ NAIK
                      S/O RAJA JADI SOMAPPA NAIK
                      AGE: 80 YEARS,
                      OCC:RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER,
                      HUTTI GOLD MINES CO. LTD.,
                      NOW R/O. GURGUNTA VILLAGE
                      TQ: LINGASUGUR.
Digitally signed by
                                                                    ...APPELLANT
KHAJAAMEEN L
MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
                      (BY SRI. DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA

                      AND:

                      1.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
                           RAICHUR - 584 101.

                      2.   THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
                           HUTTI POLICE STATION,
                           TQ:LINGASUGUR, DIST:RAICHUR-584 101.
                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
                           -2-
                            NC: 2023:KHC-K:8052-DB
                                  WA No. 200135 of 2023




     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ACT, 1861 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED

SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.202375/2023, CONSEQUENTLY BE

PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE

APPELLANT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE

REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE

RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES IN ORDER TO GIVE THE POLICE

PROTECTION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING::



                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred praying to set-aside the

order dated 17.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.202375/2023

and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider

the representations, produced at Annexures-D and E in

the writ petition.

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8052-DB WA No. 200135 of 2023

02. We have heard the learned counsel for the

appellant and perused the material on record.

03. It is averred that the suit filed by one Raja

Amarappa Naik s/o Late Raja Jadi Somappa Naik against

the appellant, in O.S.No.54/2006 seeking declaration and

injunction, claiming to be the owner and possessor of the

suit schedule property, was dismissed by the Civil Court

on 14.12.2009 and even R.A.No.26/2010 filed before the

Additional District Court, at Raichur and

RSA.No.7158/2011 filed before this Court were also

dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed in

O.S.No.54/2006.

04. The grievance of the appellant is that, he is

intending to construct a compound wall in his premises in

order to avoid further litigation, however, the legal

representatives of the said Raja Amarappa Naik, are

obstructing and threatening him and they have warned

that, they will even tress-pass the appellant's property

and in this regard he had made representations to the

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8052-DB WA No. 200135 of 2023

respondents to provide police aid/protection in order to

construct the compound wall, but the same has not been

considered by the respondents.

05. A perusal of the material on record clearly

shows that, the matter is civil in nature. Hence, the

prayer to direct the respondents/police to consider the

representations seeking police aid was rightly rejected by

the learned Single Judge, observing that it is open for the

petitioner / appellant to approach the competent Court for

redressal of his grievance.

06. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed.

07. The order of dismissal shall not preclude the

appellant from lodging a complaint with the jurisdictional

police, if there is any threat or tress-pass etc., as alleged.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE KJJ