Karnataka High Court
Syed Mrutuza Hussaini vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399
WP No.200515 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.200515 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SYED MRUTUZA HUSSAINI
S/O SYED MAHMOOD HUSSAINI PEERZADE,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: HEREDITARY SAJJAD NASHIN AND
MUTAVALLI, DARGA HAZARATH HASHIMPEER,
VIJAYAPURA,
R/O: CTS NO.1925, NEXT TO HAZARAT
HASHIMPEER DARGA, VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.P.AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by
SHIVAKUMAR 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HIREMATH BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY,
Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
COURT OF VIDHAN SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU- 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CUM DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA
DISTRICT, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399
WP No.200515 of 2025
4. THE TAHASILDAR CUM
TALUKA EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE
VIJAYAPURA TALUKA,
TQ AND DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, A.G.A.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OF DIRECTION IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER ANNEXURE-G,
NAMELY THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10-02-2025
SUBMITTED ON 11-02-2025 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 WITHIN 05 DAYS, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts
notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as
well as the learned AGA.
3. This petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to
consider the representation at Annexure-G. The said
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399
representation dated 10.02.2025 is submitted on 11.02.2025
to the respondents No.2 and 3.
4. This Court has perused the said representation.
5. The petitioner in the said representation
addressed to respondent Nos.2 and 3 has narrated the facts
relating to a Durga located in Survey No.1923 of Ward III,
Vijayapur. The said representation makes reference to
several Court proceedings and the orders passed therein with
reference to Durga referred to above. In the said
representation it is submitted that, 'Urus' is going to be
performed on 07.03.2025 and 08.03.2025 and apprehending
the dispute between the two parties, which are claiming right
to perform the said 'Urus', a request is made to provide
necessary police protection to avert possible untoward
incident/s on the said dates.
6. The application which was required to be
considered in the light of the ensuing 'Urus' on 07.03.2025
and 08.03.2025, was not considered by the respondents.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399
Accordingly, the present writ petition is filed seeking writ of
mandamus.
7. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents
would submit that, the representation is considered today
and accordingly, an endorsement is issued, rejecting the
prayer made in the said representation.
8. The memo filed by the learned AGA is taken on
record.
9. The aforementioned endorsement issued by the
Circle Police Inspector, would reveal that, in the 'Urus', that
is to take place in the aforementioned property, people in
huge numbers participated in the last year. Noticing the
dispute between two parties, pending before the Court, the
Tahasildar acting as an Administrator has supervised the
'Urus' activities. Thus, application seeking police protection
was rejected and the petitioner is directed to follow the
procedure as held in the last year.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that, the petitioner is claiming exclusive right to perform
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399
'Urus', whereas, one more person by name Sayyed
Mainuddin Hussain, is claiming a joint right to perform 'Urus'.
Along with the petitioner.
11. It is noticed that, the dispute between two parties
to perform 'Urus' is pending adjudication before the Wakf
Tribunal, Belagavi in KWT/BGR/SR/APPLN Nos.6/2012 and
8/2010. On an earlier occasion, this Court in
W.P.No.82842/2011 had permitted both parties to perform
'Urus' jointly in terms of the order dated 03.08.2012.
12. Thereafter, the Wakf Tribunal in the aforesaid
proceedings, vide order dated 01.08.2014 has modified the
order passed by this Court and directed the rival parties to
perform 'Urus' once in three months by rotation. The said
order is called in question before this Court by filing Writ
Petition No.203733/2024.
13. This Court vide order dated 24.07.2024 has set
aside the order passed by the Tribunal which had modified
the order passed by this Court, on 03.08.2012 and this Court
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399
directed status-quo and the tribunal was directed to decide
the dispute before it on merits.
14. The Tribunal in terms of the order dated
01.08.2024 allowed the claim of the present petitioner and
rejected the claim of Sayyed Mainuddin Hussain. That order
is called in question before this Court in Writ Petition
No.204572/2014 and Writ Petition No.204571/2024 and the
writ petitions were allowed and remanded to the tribunal for
fresh consideration. The writ appeal filed challenging the
order of remand was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2024.
15. Under the circumstance, what can be noticed is
that, the matter is back before the tribunal.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on
the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
United Bank of India, Calcutta Vs. Abhijit Tea Co., Pvt.,
Ltd., reported in 2000 (7) SCC 357 to contend that, once
the matter is remitted to the trial Court, the interim orders
which were operating before the trial Court would revive.
This Court has perused the aforementioned Judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in
saying that, the said interim order which was pending before
the remand, would revive and continue after the remand of
the matter to the Court which has passed the interim order.
18. It is to be noticed that, the earlier interim order
directing the parties to perform 'Urus' by rotation once in
three months, is set aside by this Court and this Court has
passed an order of status-quo. Since the interim order
granted by the Tribunal was set aside and status-quo was
ordered, what is to be noticed is that, the earlier order dated
03.08.2012 would come into operation and the said order is
in the nature of the interim order. The said order recognizes
the rights of both parties to perform 'Urus'.
19. The respondent-Police in their endorsement
apprehend breach of peace. This Court is of the view that,
the respondent-authorities are to be directed to provide
necessary police protection to the 'Urus' to be held on
07.03.2025 and 08.03.2025, as earlier order recognizes the
right to hold 'Urus' for the petitioner and rival claimants.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399
20. It is further stated that, if any fees is required to
be paid for the said purpose, the petitioner shall pay the
same.
21. It is also required to be noticed that, this order
does not prevent Sayyed Mainuddin Hussain to perform
those activities in terms of order dated 03.08.2012.
22. It is also made clear that, this order should not be
construed as having expressed any opinion on the merits of
the claim which is pending before the trial Court.
23. In case, Sayyed Mainuddin Hussain, is aggrieved
by the aforementioned order, he is at liberty to move this
Court.
24. Ordered accordingly.
Hand delivery of this order is permitted.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
SVH
