Karnataka High Court
Savitha Samaja (Kshourikara ... vs Nijaguna Shree Hadapada Appannanavara on 5 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7448
WP No. 103615 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 103615 OF 2023 (GM-KSR)
BETWEEN:
SAVITHA SAMAJA (KSHOURIKARA) SANGHA (R),
KUMARAASWAMY ROAD,
SANDUR TOWN, BALLARI DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
K. DEVARAJ S/O. THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT 13TH WARD, NEW KUMARAASWAMY ROAD,
SANDUR TOWN, BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RADHIKA K. & SRI. AKRAM PASHA D.M., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. NIJAGUNA SHREE HADAPADA APPANNANAVARA
SEVAA SANGHA,
(REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION
ACT,1960),REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
H. MALLIKARJUNA
S/O. LATE H.DEVENDRAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by YASHAVANT
R/AT CHARAN HAIR DRESSES,
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH
ALI COMPLEX, BEHIND K.K. HOTEL,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 15TH WARD, SANDUR TOWN,
DHARWAD
BENCH SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.
Date: 2024.06.21
12:11:05 +0530
2. H. KUMARASWAMY S/O. LATE H. ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT. OLD CHAPPARADAHALLI ROAD,
BEHIND VISHAL TALKIES, SANDUR TOWN,
SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.
3. H. MALLIKARJUNA
S/O. LATE H. SAHASHIVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O. GANESH TAILOR,
NEAR MRATHA SAMAJA,
NEW WELL STREET, SANDUR TOWN,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7448
WP No. 103615 of 2023
SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.
4. H. VEERESH
S/O. LATE H. BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT. OLD ARRACK DEPOT COMPOUND,
OLD DAULATHPUR ROAD,
BEHIND ROTARY CLUB GROUND,
NEAR HULIGEMMA TEMPLE,
SANDUR TOWN, SANDUR TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.
5. H. AMBARESH S/O. NOT NO...
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT. NEAR PETE BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE,
7TH WARD, SANDUR TOWN,
SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.
6. H. POMPATHI S/O. H. RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT. OPPOSITE TO NOORANI MASIDI,
SANDUR TOWN, SANDUR TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE JURISDICTIONAL POLICE TO PROVIDE
PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER AS SOUGHT IN THE COMPLAINT
FOR WHICH AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WAS PROVIDED VIDE
DOCUMENT PRODUCED AND MARKED UNDER ANNEXURE-L DATED
20-03-2023; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS AND ALL SUCH PERSONS UNDER
THEM FROM NOT TRESPASSING INTO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY'S
SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ALSO FROM INTERFERING IN PETITIONER
SOCIETY'S PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT BY PETITIONER
SOCIETY AS PER JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN OS. 26/2017,
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SANDUR DATED 03.12.2022
AS PER ANNEXURE-K; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENTS TO QUIT, VACATE AND HAND OVER VACANT
PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF PETITIONER'S SCHEDULE PROPERTY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7448
WP No. 103615 of 2023
ORDER
1. Captioned petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the
jurisdictional police to provide protection to the
Petitioner as sought in the complaint for which
an acknowledgement was provided vide
document produced and marked under
Annexure-L dated 20-03-2023.
b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing restraining
the Respondents and all such persons under
them from not trespassing into the Petitioner
society's schedule property and also from
interfering in Petitioner society's peaceful
possession and enjoyment by Petitioner society
as per Judgment and Decree passed in
o.s.26/2017, passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC
Sandur dated 03.12.2022 as per Annexure-K.
c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
Respondents to quit, vacate and hand over
vacant physical possession of Petitioner's
schedule property.
2. Prayer-A of the writ petition cannot be entertained as
the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to file a
complaint. If the jurisdictional police station is not
entertaining the complaint in terms of dictum laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sakri Vasu v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others1 the aggrieved
person's first remedy would be to approach the
(2008) 2 SCC 409
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7448
Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C.
Even after approaching the Superintendent of Police if
no steps are taken, the aggrieved person can approach
Magistrate under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the said case has clearly held that the
High Courts should discourage writ petitions filed under
Article 227 of Constitution of India and Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., where alternative remedy is available under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., or under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C., which has not been exhausted.
3. Insofar as prayer-B is concerned, the petitioner is
seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from
trespassing into the petitioner-Society's schedule
property and interfere with petitioner's peaceful
possession. Prayer-B also cannot be entertained by this
Court as Writ Courts cannot examine the dispute
relating to possessory rights and therefore, the
petitioner has to approach a competent Civil Court
insofar as Prayer-B is concerned. For the reasons stated
supra, this Court passes the following:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7448
ORDER
i) The writ petition, being devoid of merits,
stands dismissed.
ii) In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and are disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
