Writ petition challenging a Trial Court order granting police protection restraining construction in a property suit. The court held there was no absolute injunction; construction may proceed per sanction plan, subject to inspection by local authority, and disposed of the petition with clarifications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 104432 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH
SMT. SHYLAJA W/O. SHIVAMURTHEYYA MALASHANKARIMATH, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK, TAL: AND DIST: HAVERI-582101.
(BY SRI. P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11-06-2024 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HAVERI ON I.A.NO.8 IN O.S.NO.351/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-K, AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
and the learned counsel for the respondent.
considered the grounds urged in the appeal, taken note of the reasoning of the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion that granting of the relief means the defendants are at liberty to construct by following the due process of law and the appeal was dismissed. The same was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.102473/2024
and this Court having considered the contentions of respective parties, comes to the conclusion that though the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that impuogned order is vague would appear substantial, sum and substance of order would be that petitioners could continue construction, but only in accordance with law. Since the petitioners-defendants have stated that they have obtained a building permission, injunction granted would not come in their way of continuing construction and such construction would be open for inspection and/or action by local authority, in case of violation of building bye-laws/permission. Making such an observation also, given direction to the respective parties and the Trial Court
was also directed to frame issues and record evidence and
dispose of the same within six months.
passed is observed that with due process of law the construction work has to be continued and this Court
made an observation in the earlier writ petition and the very order of the Trial Court is erroneous and it requires interference.
contend that he has no objection to put up construction in accordance with the sanction plan but there is a clear violation of sanction plan and construction is made as against sanction plan and Municipality is also not taking any action in view of violation of the sanction plan and
when they did not take any action, then only police protection is sought before the Trial Court to restrain the construction work.
construction undertaken is against the sanction plan and this Court also in earlier petition made an observation that the construction would be open for inspection and/or action by local authority, in case of violation of building bye-laws/permission.
restrained the petitioners herein to put up construction in accordance with sanction plan.
stands disposed of.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court's order granting police protection under Section 151 CPC wrongly treated the earlier injunction as absolute and restrained construction?
Whether the police protection order should be clarified to apply only in case of violation of the sanction plan?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Satish S/o. Gurunath Patil-Kulkarni
Smt. Mangala W/o. Satish Patil-Kulkarni
Smt. Shylaja W/o. Shivamurtheyya Malashankarimath
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
