Karnataka High Court
Mahantesh S/O Rudrappa Lingadalli vs The Deputy Commissioner on 3 August, 2021
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WP NO. 114491 OF 2019 (KLR/RES)
BETWEEN
1 . MAHANTESH S/O RUDRAPPA LINGADALLI
AGE: 48 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YENAGI, TQ: SOUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2 . SURESH S/O RUDRAPPA LINGADALLI
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: YENAGI, TQ: SOUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3 . ANNAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA LINGADALLI
AGE: 52 YEAR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YENAGI, TQ: SOUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.G.R. TURMURI & SRI. V.S. KOUJALAGI, ADVS)
AND
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3 . THE THASILDAR,
2
SOUINDATTI, TQ: SOUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.K. BASAVARAK. AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
ORDER OR QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2019 PASSED
BY RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for respondents.
2. The petitioner has questioned the provisional order passed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. dated 28/7/2019 by the 3rd respondent wherein he has directed the petitioners not to obstruct the pathway/road leading to the graveyard in Yenagi village, Savadatti taluk meant for non-muslim community.
3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are :
Graveyard meant for non-muslim community situated in Yenagi village exists adjacent to the property of the petitioners herein and since there has been a dispute with regard to the 3 approach road, the villagers have been agitating and though request was made by the 3rd respondent with the petitioners herein not to obstruct the approach road leading to graveyard, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had agreed for the same but the petitioner No.1 was obstructing the approach road and since there was threat of law and order problem the 3rd respondent in exercise of his powers under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. had passed a provisional order directing the 1st petitioner herein not to obstruct the approach road leading to the graveyard and not to cause any problem to the public using the approached road leading to the graveyard. After having issued the said provisional orders on 28/7/2019, he had served a notice of the same to the petitioners, fixing the date of hearing on 17/8/2019 at 11.00 am. Being aggrieved by the said provisional rule, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is standing sugarcane crop in the land belonging to the petitioners and on the guise of approaching the graveyard, the authorities concerned are making attempt to cut the standing crops. He submits that if the standing crops are protected he will 4 appear before the 3rd respondent and file his statement as against the provisional order now passed against him.
5. The learned AGA submits that except the approach road in dispute there is no other road to reach the graveyard and since the petitioners have been causing obstruction, the jurisdictional Taluka Executive Magistrate has rightly exercised power under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that as against the provisional order, the writ petition is not maintainable. He also submits that steps are being taken by the State Government to acquire the extent of land for the purpose of forming the approach road to the graveyard. He submits that having regard to the interim order granted by this Court, the general public are not in a position to use the approach road to the graveyard.
6. I have carefully considered the rival arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the order challenged before this Court in this writ petition is a provisional order passed under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioners to appear before the 3rd respondent and give their explanation as to why 5 the said provisional order should not be confirmed. They have not done the same. The petitioners have directly approached this Court in this writ petition.
8. The provisional order is in the nature of show cause notice. The writ petition as against the same is not at all maintainable. The petitioners are therefore required to appear before the 3rd respondent and file necessary statement before the said authority explaining as to why the provisional order against them should not be confirmed. However, having regard to the grievance of the petitioners that the standing sugarcane crop is likely to be cut and removed by the authority in the guise of formation of the approach road it is made clear that, pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent in exercise of the powers under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. standing sugarcane crops of the petitioners shall not be cut and removed either by the respondents herein or anybody claiming under them. It is also made clear that the petitioners shall also not cause any obstruction to the general public to use the approach road which passes through their land for reaching the graveyard in question.
6
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the 3rd respondent authority and file their statement/explanation as to why the provisional order which is challenged in this writ petition should not be confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vb/-