Dismissed

M/S Golden Gate Projects v. Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2023WP/6956/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus for police protection against respondents 4-7 who interfered with their land despite an ex-parte injunction. The Court held that granting protection would tilt scales of justice pending the trial on the underlying suit, dismissing the writ and directing the trial court to first resolve the injunction dispute.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Golden Gate Projects Vs Government of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:34717 WP No. 6956 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 6956 OF 2020 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S GOLDEN GATE PROJECTS (A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.96, 1^ST FLOOR, 4^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560034 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. C.D. SANJAY RAJ.

¶8

SRI. C.D. SANJAY RAJ S/O SRI. C.H. DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4, BENSON CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE-560046

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560001

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BELLANDUR POLICE STATION,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:34717 WP No. 6956 of 2020

¶17

BELLANDUR, BANGALORE-560103

¶18

SRI YOGESH S/O S. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.270, MUNISWAMY LAYOUT, KASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLANDUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560038

¶19

SRI. MAHESH S/O S. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶20

SRI. DHARANI S/O S. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶21

SRI. NAGARAJ S/O S. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶22

RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING TOGETHER AT NO.270, MUNISWAMY LAYOUT, KASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLANDUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560038.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3;

¶24

SMT. J.KALADEEPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4;

¶25

SRI. M.RAVI CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7)

¶26

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:34717 WP No. 6956 of 2020

¶29

TO 3 TO PROVIDE NECESSARY POLICE PROTECTION IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD THE LIVES AND THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR STAFF MEMBERS AND ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This petition is filed seeking for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to provide protection in order to safeguard their lives and properties.

¶33

Petitioners contend that they are the owners of the land bearing Sy. No.12/4 of Kasavanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru. They claim that the respondent Nos.4 to 7 though having no manner of right, title and interest to interfere with their possession, which compelled them to file O.S. No.9159/2018 for perpetual injunction in respect of the aforesaid property and that the Court had granted an order of ex-parte injunction restraining the respondent Nos.4 to 7 from interfering with their possession. It is contended by the petitioner that after the Court had granted an order of injunction, petitioners have approached respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking protection against interference by the respondent Nos.4 to 7 and that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not acted upon

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:34717 WP No. 6956 of 2020

¶36

the request of the petitioners. Therefore, petitioners have sought for a writ against respondent Nos.1 to 3 to provide protection to them and to their property.

¶37

Learned counsel for petitioners contend that though

¶38

the Court has protected the possession of the petitioners by an order of ex-parte injunction, yet , respondent Nos.4 to 7 were interfering with their possession and respondent Nos.1 to 3 have turned mute spectators and have not taken any action on the request of the petitioners.

¶39

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have issued notices to the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 7 and they are directed not to disturb peace and to maintain law and order. He, therefore, submits that claim of the petitioners that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not taken any action, is without any basis.

¶40

Learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos.4 to

¶41

7 submits that the Trial Court has granted an ex-parte order and the order is yet to be tested and therefore, granting any police protection would cause injustice to them. She submits

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:34717 WP No. 6956 of 2020

¶43

that since the application for vacating the order of injunction is still pending before the Trial Court, it is improper to grant any order, which would tilt the scales of justice and would only embolden the petitioners to interfere with their possession.

¶44

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶45

counsel for petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7.

¶46

The Trial Court has granted an order of interim ex-parte order of injunction restraining the respondent Nos.4 to 7 restraining them from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. However, respondent Nos.4 to 7 now have entered appearance and have filed necessary application for vacating the said ex-parte order of interim. Therefore, unless the claim of the petitioners is tested against the claim of the respondent Nos.4 to 7, issuing any directions to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to grant protection to the petitioners would definitely arm the petitioners with a licence to change the status quo.

¶47

In that view of the matter, it is appropriate that the

¶48

Trial Court is directed to dispose off the applications filed by the

¶49

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:34717 WP No. 6956 of 2020

¶50

petitioners as well as respondent Nos.4 to 7 for injunction and vacating the interim order of injunction granted in favour of the petitioners respectively in O.S. No.9159/2018. The Trial Court, thereafter, may consider, whether the petitioners are entitled to any protection from respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶51

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off with

¶52

following directions to the Trial Court:

¶53

(1) The petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 7 shall appear before the Trial Court in O.S. No.9159/2018 on 29^th September 2023 and address arguments on the applications filed for interim injunction as well as for vacating the order of interim injunction;

¶54

(2) The Trial Court shall endeavour to dispose off the said applications within a period of two weeks after the arguments are concluded;

¶55

(3) Thereafter, the Trial Court may consider granting an order directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to protect the possession of the persons concerned, who are found to be in possession

¶56

¶57

NC: 2023:KHC:34717 WP No. 6956 of 2020

¶58

of the property, which shall be in force until disposal of the suit.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

VK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

M/S Golden Gate Projects v. Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Golden Gate Projects v. Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nagesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Nayeem Ahmed Vs State by

Sri R Shivalingappa Vs State of Karnataka

Mallesha G Vs Station House Officer

M/S Jewel De Paragon Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Rajesh Exports Ltd.

Sri. a S David Vs the Assistant Commissioner