Karnataka High Court
Sri V R Vishwanth vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2020
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V. Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION No. 9080 OF 2020 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SRI V.R VISHWANTH.
S/O LATE V.H. RANGASWAMY AGED 54 YEARS
R/@ # 543 3RD MAIN "A" BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE.
BANGALORE-10 ...PETITIONER
(PARTY IN PERSON)
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
AND:
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP., BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE -01.
2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
D G OFFICE BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU.
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CENTRAL RANGE,
MILLERS ROAD,BENGALURU-52
4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-52.
2
5.THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
MILLERS ROAD,BENGALURU-52.
6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
DODDABALLAPUR - 560 099.
7. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
DODDABALLAPUR CIRCLE,
DODDABALLAPUR - 560 009.
8. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
RAJANKUNTE POLICE STATION,
DODDABALLAPURA
SUB DIVISION RAJANKUNTE
BENGALURU - 64.
9. SRI SOMASHEKHARA REDDY
S/0 LATE. MUNISHAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/@ RAJANKUNTE VILLAGE,
HESSARGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-64. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R9
SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R8)
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO
THE R-2 TO 4 TO PUT BACK, CONTINUE AND PROVIDE EXTENDED,
COMPLETE NECESSARY PROTECTION AND SECURITY FOR 3 MONTHS
TO THE PETITIONER AND FAMILY AND TO THE 3 SAID PROPERTIES
(OWNED BY PETITIONER AND FAMILY) VIDE LAND BEARING
SY.NBO.206/1, 206/2 AND SY.NO.206/4 SITUATED AT
ADDEVISHWNATHAPURA VILLAGE HESARGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU
NORTH TALUK CONSIDERING THE GROUND IN AT PARAGRAPH 18
AMONGST MOST OTHERS.(II) DIRECT THE R-2, IN PROCURING THE
FRAUNDULENTLY INVOLVED AND THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS
3
(FAMILY TREE, DEATH CERTIFICATES INVOLVED IN FRAUDULENT
KHATHA TRANSFER) AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTING TO FILE THE
SAME BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT, AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT
POLICE R-2 AND 3 TO GET THE FRAUDULENT SALE DEED CANCELLED
INITIATING STRINGENT ACTION AGAINST R-9 AND HIS HENCHMEN
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS
ON 28.08.2020, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The above writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
"b) Issue a WRIT in the nature of Mandamus to issue a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to put back, continue and provide extended, complete necessary protection and security for three months to the petitioner and family and to the three said properties (owned by petitioner & family) vide land bearing sy.No.206/1,206/2 and sy.No.206/4 situated at AddeVishwanathapura Village Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk considering the ground in at paragraph 18 amongst most others.
c) to direct the respondent 2, in procuring the fraudulently involved and the most important documents (family tree, Death certificates involved in fraudulent Khata transfer) and accordingly directing to file the same before this Hon'ble Court, and consequently be pleased in directing police respondent Nos.2 and 3 to get the fraudulent sale 4 deed cancelled initiating stringent action against Respondent No.9 and his henchmen".
The particulars of the properties contained in the schedule to the petition are as under:
"SCHEDULE Item -1 All that part and parcel of the agricultural Land bearing Sy.No.206/1 measuring an extent of 3 Acre- 15 guntas situated at Addevishwanathapura Village, Hessaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, Bounded by:
East By : Petitioners own Land
(Sy.No.206/2 and Sy.No.26/4)
West By : Narayanappa's Property
North By : Thanveer Ahmed's Property
South By : Nanja Reddy's property.
Item-2
All that part and parcel of the agricultural Land bearing Sy.No.206/2 measuring an extent of 29 guntas situated at Addevishwanathapura Village, Hessaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, Bounded by:5
East By : Road
West By : Petitioner's own Land
(Sy.No.206/1)
North By : Petitioners own land
(Sy.No.206/4)
South By : Nanja Reddy's property.
Item-2
All that part and parcel of the agricultural Land bearing Sy.No.206/4 measuring an extent of 30 guntas situated at Addevishwanathapura Village, Hessaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, Bounded by:
East By : Road
West By : Petitioner's own Land
(Sy.No.206/1)
North By : Subbareddy's Property
South By : Petitioner's own Land
(sy.No.206/2)"
2. It is the case of the petitioner that scheduled properties are his family properties and in his possession. He states that respondent no.9 is the brother of a Member of Legislative Assembly and a real estate agent. That respondent no.9, by using his political clout is trying to forcibly takeaway petitioner's 6 properties. On earlier occasions when respondent no.9 and his aides trespassed into petitioner's property, he lodged complaints with Police, leading to registration of FIRs and filing of charge-
sheet. It is also his case that there were attempts by respondent no.9 to alter revenue entries with regard to scheduled properties, which he stalled by filing appeal/applications etc.
2. At present, petitioner's grievance is that due to complete misunderstanding of the orders passed in W.P.Nos.28439-40/2019, by recently posted police officers, no assistance is availed to him even on complaints of breaking open of locks/gates, theft of valuables and threats on his life, which have made his daily life, a struggle. According to petitioner, respondent no.9 obtained order in W.P.Nos.28439-40/2019, from this Court, misleading it by making incorrect and false submissions.
3. In support of petition averments, copies of FIRs, medical certificate to substantiate the assault, RTCs of scheduled properties, copy of writ petition and orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.28439-40/2019 are produced.
7
4. In response to the notice ordered in this petition, respondents no.1 to 8 were represented by learned HCGP. Respondent no.9 entered appearance and filed statement of objections.
5. Learned HCGP submitted that the petition does not deserve consideration, as the respondent-police have taken sufficient and adequate measures to protect the right of both the parties and to maintain law and order and that they have complied with the order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.28439- 40/2019.
6. Learned counsel for respondent no.9, however, submitted that writ petition was liable to be dismissed at the outset, for suppression and misrepresentation. The petitioner has declared that no civil suit is pending with regard to schedule properties, knowing it to be false, as two civil suits filed by him are pending. It was submitted that none of the prayers sought for by petitioner are tenable. Prayer No.1 is for a direction to respondents No.2 to 4 to put back the petitioner in possession of 8 properties and to keep him and his family protected. It was submitted that such a prayer could only be sought for before a Civil Court. The second prayer is seeking for a direction to respondents to issue copies of certain documents, which according to him are false and fabricated. Such a direction cannot be sought for in a writ petition, that too against a private person. It was submitted that respondent no.9 is claiming ownership over scheduled lands on the basis of a sale deed dated 23.11.2006 (Annexure-R1). This sale deed is challenged by petitioner in O.S. No.2286/2007, which is pending. It was contended that the instant writ petition involved disputed questions of fact with regard to title and possession, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings.
7. It was lastly contended that O.S. No. 406/2007 is filed by petitioner against one Lakshminarayana, seeking for declaration of title with regard to land bearing Sy. No.206/2. It was submitted that as petitioner is yet to establish his title with regard to said property, he is not entitled for relief insofar as Sy.No.206/2 is concerned. More so, without arraying 9 aforementioned Lakshminarayana as party - respondent to this petition. Hence, contended that writ petition was bad for non- joinder of parties.
8. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 8 and learned counsel for respondent No.9 and perused writ petition papers.
9. Though, question of title and possession would be disputed questions of fact, in view of pending civil suits, but when a citizen approaches this Court seeking for protection of his life and liberty against wrongful infraction, this Court is under an obligation to examine the same.
10. The parties to this writ petition were already before this Court in W.P. Nos.28439-40/2019, filed by respondent no.9 seeking to restrain the police from interfering in civil disputes between petitioner and respondent no.9. The said petition was disposed of placing on record, the undertaking by respondent - police authorities that they would not interfere in the civil disputes between petitioner and respondent no.9. The petitioner 10 in this writ petition was respondent no.8 in that matter, while respondent no.9 herein was the petitioner. The learned Single Judge in paragraph No.3 of the order has observed as follows:
"3. When the matters were taken up today, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that respondent nos. 2 to 7 shall not interfere with the Civil Dispute pending between petitioner and respondent no.8 in respect of Sy. No.206/1 and 206/4. However, they will take necessary steps so that law and order is maintained.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
11. The direction issued to respondent - police authorities to take necessary steps to maintain law and order is not with regard to property, but insofar as petitioner and respondent no.9 are concerned. In any case, respondent nos.1 to 8 herein, represented by learned HCGP, even while denying any inaction on their part have reiterated that necessary steps are taken to maintain law and order. Thus, not only on this ground, but also 11 in view of earlier directions issued in W.P.Nos.28439-40/2019, no further direction requires to be issued in this petition, the prayer sought by petitioner in this regard is superfluous.
12. With regard to other prayers, attention of this Court was drawn to pending civil litigation. It is also contended that a false declaration was made by petitioner that, no civil suit is pending.
13. While, petitioner failed to disclose all related litigations with regard to the subject matter of this petition, he has also alleged that order in W.P.Nos.28439-40/2019 is obtained by misleading this Court, even when the order is passed in his presence and he has accepted it. On the other hand, respondent no.9 has asserted that O.S. No.406/2007 is filed by petitioner seeking for declaration of title. But, a perusal of the plaint (Annexure-R4) reveals that relief sought in O.S.No.402/2008 (incorrectly stated as O.S. No.406/2007 in the Statement of Objections by respondent no.9), is for a decree of permanent injunction and not for declaration of title, as contended. Therefore, there is attempt by both parties to punch above their 12 weight. While parties are not discouraged from agitating genuine grievances, they cannot be allowed to intrigue Courts of law in their mudslinging. A stern warning is issued to both parties to desist from doing so and confine themselves to agitating their rights as normal responsible persons.
14. Indeed, civil disputes with regard to title, possession over schedule properties and threat of violation of fundamental rights and protection of life and liberty of petitioner and his family, are two different aspects. The only question that arises in this case is, whether the reliefs sought for in this writ petition are those that ought to be urged in the pending civil suits?
In this case, petitioner claims ownership over the scheduled properties on the basis of inheritance, while respondent no.9 claims ownership on the basis of a registered sale deed. In view of the fact that the sale deed under which respondent no.9 is claiming acquisition of title is under challenge in a civil suit filed by the petitioner herein, it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass any orders as it would affect rights and contentions of either of the parties in the pending civil 13 suit. A useful reference may be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moran M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews II v. State of Kerala, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 517, wherein it observed that:
"... we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a manifest error in going into the disputed questions of title as also the disputed questions in regard to the rights of a particular group to manage the Churches, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, particularly, when such questions are pending consideration before competent civil courts. We, therefore, are of the opinion that any observation made by the High Court should not influence the courts concerned in arriving at their independent decisions ..."
15. In the instant case also, the relief claimed is for police protection with regard to the immovable properties and with regard to which there are pending civil suits. Hence, the following:
ORDER The writ petition, insofar as the prayer relates to a direction to respondents No. 2 to 4 to put back, continue and provide extended complete and necessary protection to the petitioner and family with regard to the schedule properties, is dismissed.14
However, liberty is reserved to approach appropriate Courts of law/Authorities for appropriate reliefs, keeping open all contentions of both the parties.
ii) The prayer, seeking for a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3, to get fraudulent sale deed cancelled and to initiate stringent action against respondent no.9 and his henchmen is also dismissed, reserving liberty to file appropriate complaint before the jurisdictional police, if so desired, with an observation that dismissal of said relief in this writ petition would not either come in the way or grant of such liberty by itself, give rise to any such cause of action.
iii) Even the prayer seeking for a direction to respondent No.2 to procure the fraudulently involved (sic) family tree, death certificate, khata transfer before this Court is also rejected as not tenable.15
iv) As directions have already been issued by this Court in W.P. Nos.28439-40/2019 disposed of on 30.08.2019, prayer for seeking direction for police protection is rejected, as being unnecessary.
With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Psg* CT:TAB