Dismissed

Savitha Samaja (Kshourikara )Sangha(R) v. Nijaguna Shree Hadapada Appannanavara

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024WP/103615/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition sought mandamus for police protection, injunction against trespass, and eviction in a property dispute. The Court held that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedies under Cr.P.C. and that Writ Courts cannot adjudicate possessory disputes, which must be approached in the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications are disposed of accordingly.

Savitha Samaja (Kshourikara )Sangha(R) Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7448 WP No. 103615 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 103615 OF 2023 (GM-KSR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SAVITHA SAMAJA (KSHOURIKARA) SANGHA (R), KUMARAASWAMY ROAD, SANDUR TOWN, BALLARI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K. DEVARAJ S/O. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT 13^TH WARD, NEW KUMARAASWAMY ROAD, SANDUR TOWN, BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. RADHIKA K. & SRI. AKRAM PASHA D.M., ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.06.21 12:11:05 +0530

¶11

NIJAGUNA SHREE HADAPADA APPANNANAVARA SEVAA SANGHA, (REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT,1960),REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, H. MALLIKARJUNA S/O. LATE H.DEVENDRAPPA, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT CHARAN HAIR DRESSES, ALI COMPLEX, BEHIND K.K. HOTEL, 15^TH WARD, SANDUR TOWN, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.

¶12

H. KUMARASWAMY S/O. LATE H. ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT. OLD CHAPPARADAHALLI ROAD, BEHIND VISHAL TALKIES, SANDUR TOWN, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.

¶13

H. MALLIKARJUNA S/O. LATE H. SAHASHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. GANESH TAILOR, NEAR MRATHA SAMAJA, NEW WELL STREET, SANDUR TOWN,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7448 WP No. 103615 of 2023

¶15

SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.

¶16

H. VEERESH S/O. LATE H. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT. OLD ARRACK DEPOT COMPOUND, OLD DAULATHPUR ROAD, BEHIND ROTARY CLUB GROUND, NEAR HULIGEMMA TEMPLE, SANDUR TOWN, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.

¶17

H. AMBARESH S/O. NOT NO... AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT. NEAR PETE BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE, 7^TH WARD, SANDUR TOWN, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.

¶18

H. POMPATHI S/O. H. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT. OPPOSITE TO NOORANI MASIDI, SANDUR TOWN, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE JURISDICTIONAL POLICE TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER AS SOUGHT IN THE COMPLAINT FOR WHICH AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WAS PROVIDED VIDE DOCUMENT PRODUCED AND MARKED UNDER ANNEXURE-L DATED 20-03-2023; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS AND ALL SUCH PERSONS UNDER THEM FROM NOT TRESPASSING INTO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY’S SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ALSO FROM INTERFERING IN PETITIONER SOCIETY’S PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT BY PETITIONER SOCIETY AS PER JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN OS. 26/2017, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SANDUR DATED 03.12.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-K; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO QUIT, VACATE AND HAND OVER VACANT PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF PETITIONER’S SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7448 WP No. 103615 of 2023

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Captioned petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶26

a) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the jurisdictional police to provide protection to the Petitioner as sought in the complaint for which an acknowledgement was provided vide document produced and marked under Annexure-L dated 20-03-2023.

¶27

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing restraining the Respondents and all such persons under them from not trespassing into the Petitioner society’s schedule property and also from interfering in Petitioner society’s peaceful possession and enjoyment by Petitioner society as per Judgment and Decree passed in o.s.26/2017, passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC Sandur dated 03.12.2022 as per Annexure-K.

¶28

c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to quit, vacate and hand over vacant physical possession of Petitioner’s schedule property.

¶29

Prayer-A of the writ petition cannot be entertained as

¶30

the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to file a complaint. If the jurisdictional police station is not entertaining the complaint in terms of dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sakri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others¹ the aggrieved person’s first remedy would be to approach the

¶31

1 (2008) 2 SCC 409

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7448 WP No. 103615 of 2023

¶33

Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. Even after approaching the Superintendent of Police if no steps are taken, the aggrieved person can approach Magistrate under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case has clearly held that the High Courts should discourage writ petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C., where alternative remedy is available under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., or under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., which has not been exhausted.

¶34

Insofar as prayer-B is concerned, the petitioner is seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from trespassing into the petitioner-Society’s schedule property and interfere with petitioner’s peaceful possession. Prayer-B also cannot be entertained by this Court as Writ Courts cannot examine the dispute relating to possessory rights and therefore, the petitioner has to approach a competent Civil Court insofar as Prayer-B is concerned. For the reasons stated supra, this Court passes the following:

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7448 WP No. 103615 of 2023

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) The writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

¶38

ii) In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

YAN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Savitha Samaja (Kshourikara )Sangha(R) v. Nijaguna Shree Hadapada Appannanavara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitha Samaja (Kshourikara )Sangha(R) v. Nijaguna Shree Hadapada Appannanavara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Irayya Virupaxayya Divate Vs the Panchayat Development Officer

Smt. Rukminibai Udayakumar Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka

The President, Gram Panchayat Yadur Village, Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Syed Yakhoob Hussaini Vs Election Officer

Dayanand Vs Belagavi

D.S.Mallaplur S/O. Singadeppa Vs State of Karnataka