Allowed

Donthi N Spathagiri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024WP/22944/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, whose names are in municipal katha after a sale deed following a decree for specific performance, complained that the vendor's legal representatives were interfering with their possession and that police refused protection. The court quashed the police endorsement and directed reconsideration of the complaint under the 2018 circular.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 27.6.2024 quashed; respondent No.3 directed to reconsider complaint dated 8.6.2024 per circular dated 14.11.2018 and act within ten days.

Donthi N Spathagiri Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38400 WP No. 22944 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 22944 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DONTHI N SPATHAGIRI

¶9

SON OF LATE SRI NANDAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUMAGIRI, 16^TH CROSS, NEAR MARUTHI VIDYA KENDRA, S S PURAM, TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶10

ANAND KALWAD

¶11

SON OF LAT SRI BHIMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, OPPOSTE CENTURY APARTMENT, VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD-580 004.

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. S.V. GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:38400 WP No. 22944 of 2024

¶20

B.H ROAD, ASHOKANAGAR,

¶21

TUMAKURU CITY-572 103.

¶22

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR TUMKUR RURAL POLICE STATION TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶23

THE SUB INSPECTOR TUMKUR RURAL POLICE STATION TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.06.2024 BEARING NO. A(R)H/PETCE/144/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-W ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that following the decree for specific performance, a sale deed was executed in favor of the father of petitioner No. 1, and subsequently, his name has been mutated in the katha maintained by the relevant Municipality. Given these circumstances, the legal representatives of the vendor are interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject properties.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:38400 WP No. 22944 of 2024

¶33

In the suit filed by one of the legal representatives of the vendor, there is currently no order of restraint operating against the petitioners. He further submits that the application for a temporary injunction has been rejected, with the court holding that the petitioners are in possession of the subject properties. He relies on the circular dated 14.11.2018 issued by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State, which mandates police officers to issue guidelines for granting protection to individuals who are in ownership and possession of sites and buildings not agricultural land situated within town city limits, specifically those whose names are entered in the katha.

¶34

The petitioners' grievance is that despite the complaint filed by them with the police, no action is being taken against the legal representatives of the vendor for illegally entering the petitioners' premises and disrupting their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject properties.

¶35

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents-State submits that there is evidence indicating that the petitioners are in possession of the subject properties following the sale deed executed by the Court Commissioner.

¶36

Be that as it may, the names of the petitioners are recorded in the katha maintained by the relevant Municipality. In the suit filed by the legal representatives of the vendor, the application for a temporary injunction has been rejected, with a

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:38400 WP No. 22944 of 2024

¶39

finding recorded that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of their properties. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The petition is allowed.

¶42

ii) The impugned endorsement dated 27.6.2024 vide Annexure-W issued by the respondent No.3 is hereby quashed.

¶43

iii) The respondent No.3 is directed to consider the complaint dated 8.6.2024 in light of the circular dated 14.11.2018 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶44

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶45

BKM

Donthi N Spathagiri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Donthi N Spathagiri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri R Manjunath Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sri Goutam Maloo Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sonnamma Vs the Assistant General Manager

Sri. Ramachandra Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants Co. Operative Bank Limited

K Sudhamani Vs the Union of India

Sri P Bhaskar Vs the State of Karnataka