Disposed

Murali v. the Director General and Igp

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024WP/23179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed of by directing police to implement the temporary injunction order passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court restraining respondents from constructing on specific government lands. The State's assurance of taking action led to disposal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to R2 to R4 to implement the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court forthwith.

Murali Vs the Director General and Igp — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36227 WP No. 23179 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 23179 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MURALI, S/O BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT KANNURAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B.R.VISWANATH., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND IGP, STATE OF KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT POLICE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 052.

¶14

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT POLICE, HOSAKOTE DIVISION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 052.

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER / INSPECTOR, HOSAKOTE POLICE STATION, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 114.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36227 WP No. 23179 of 2024

¶17

HARISH, S/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶18

M. RAVI KUMAR, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶19

PRADEEP, S/O KATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶20

AMBAREESH, S/O LATE MEESE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶21

SHANTHKUMAR, S/O LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶22

BHAGWAN SINDHYA, S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶23

GURUSWAMY, S/O LATE SONNAPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶24

P. MUNIRAJU @ PANDRI, S/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶25

ANIL KUMAR, S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶26

MADHU KUMAR, S/O ALAK RAJU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36227 WP No. 23179 of 2024

¶28

SHIVARAJU @ KUTTI, S/O LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶29

NATARAJ, S/O LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KANNURAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 114.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

¶31

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO 4 TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO RESTRAIN THE UNLAWFUL ACTS OF THE R-5 TO 16 OR THEIR SUPPORTERS IN CREATING NUISANCE AND INTIMIDATION IN THE SAID LANDS BEARING SY.NO. 177, MEASURING 18 GUNTAS AND ANOTHER LAND BEARING SY.NO.176, MEASURING 13 GUNTAS, BOTH ARE SITUATED AT KANNURAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS AT ANNEXURE - D1 AND D2 AND ETC.,

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioner has filed a complaint before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court at Bengaluru, alleging that the private respondents are unlawfully attempting to erect a statue on government land bearing Survey Nos. 177 and 176, measuring 18 guntas and 13 guntas respectively, both located in Kannurahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosakote Taluk.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:36227 WP No. 23179 of 2024

¶38

The Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, by order dated 06.05.2024, granted an ex-parte temporary injunction restraining respondents No. 1 to 12 from constructing anything on the said lands. This interim order is still in effect.

¶39

The petitioner’s grievance is that despite the interim order of temporary injunction, the respondents continue to trespass and attempt to alter the nature of the land. The petitioner has lodged numerous complaints with the jurisdictional police, but no effective action has been taken.

¶40

The learned HCGP for the respondent-State has assured that the police will take appropriate action against the private respondents in accordance with the temporary injunction order issued by the Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru.

¶41

Therefore, it is necessary to dispose of the petition by directing respondents No. 2 to 4 to implement the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court in LGC(P) 329/2024, forthwith.

¶42

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

¶43

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶44

PN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77

Murali v. the Director General and Igp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murali v. the Director General and Igp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S M S R Textiles Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. G. M. a. Industries Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Naganna Vs the Chief Secretary

M/S Chamundi Builders Vs Authorised Officer

Sri.K.H.Hanumanthaiah Vs Sri Prakashchand

Avishkar Innovative Private Limited Vs the Registrar