Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nagarathna vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16968
WP No. 31598 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 31598 OF 2017 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGARATHNA,
W/O T RAJAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
#36/17, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
N.S. PALYA, B.T.M. 2ND STAGE,
B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560076.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY MICO LAYOUT,
POLICE STATION - 560001.
2. THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE,
Digitally signed
BANGALORE - 560072.
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA 3. S.R. NAGARAJ,
Location: HIGH S/O RAMAKRISHANAPPA,
COURT OF # 47/54, 7TH CROSS,
KARNATAKA
MICRO LAYOUT,
B.T.M. LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2,
SMT SUDHA S N, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a)
ISSUE A WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI/ANY ORDER/ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16968
WP No. 31598 of 2017
IMPUGNED ORDER FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A BEARING
NO.BMTF/DY.S.P/GL/16/16 DATED 8.6.2016 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL FOR NON
PROSECUTION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:-
"a) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of certiorari/any order/any other Writ quashing the impugned order found at ANNEXURE-A bearing No.BMTF/Dy.S.P./GL/16/16 dated 8.6.2016.
b) Grant such other order/s which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an owner of the property in Site bearing No.31/1A, situated at 13th 'A' Cross, N.S. Palya, BTM Layout, Bangalore - 560 076 and acquired the same by a registered gift deed dated 18.07.2011. There being certain disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 had approached the respondent No.2-Bangalore -3- NC: 2025:KHC:16968 WP No. 31598 of 2017 Metropolitan Task Force (hereinafter referred to as 'BMTF') making certain allegations/complaints.
3. On that basis, the respondent No.2 claiming to have conducted an enquiry, issued a notice to the petitioner and respondent No.2 has come to a conclusion that there are certain falsification in making revenue entries made by the petitioner and on that ground, directed the jurisdictional police to register an FIR. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, there is a civil dispute between petitioner and respondent No.3 in O.S. No.2834/2015. The said dispute relating to the property rights. The BMTF can only exercise rights and has jurisdiction only as regards Government properties and has sought to interfere in a private dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3. On that ground, he submit that the action taken by the BMTF, the reports -4- NC: 2025:KHC:16968 WP No. 31598 of 2017 submitted by the BMTF and instructions issued are required to be quashed.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that there was an allegation which was made of the involvement of the officers of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in fabrication of the records, hence BMTF directed the registration of the First Information Report and as such, the above petition is required to be dismissed.
6. The BMTF has been created under the BBMP for the purpose of ascertaining if there is any land belonging to the Government and Corporation which is being usurped and or encroached upon by any private party. In a present case, a specific query posed to the learned Additional Government Advocate, he submits that in the present matter there is no Government land which is involved. The dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No.3. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:16968 WP No. 31598 of 2017
7. If that be so, the BMTF by itself when a complaint was filed by respondent No.3 could not have conducted an enquiry and directed the jurisdictional police to register an FIR, the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 stated to be pending in O.S. No.2834/2015 it is for the petitioner and respondent No.3 to resolve the dispute in accordance with law. The BMTF ought not to have interfered in the matter.
8. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:-
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The enquiry and order dated 08.06.2016 of the 2nd respondent BMTF at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.
iii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner and respondent No.3 to agitate their grievance before the appropriate Court. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:16968 WP No. 31598 of 2017
iv) Liberty is also reserved to the BBMP to initiate such action against such of the officials of the BMMP who are alleged to have involved in the fabrication.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CHS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1