Allowed

Hazrath Hameed Shah Khadri and Hazrath Muhib Shah Khadri (Ra ) v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2024WP/3287/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a notification directing the sealing of properties leased to members of banned political parties, holding the action arbitrary and lacking legal basis as the landlords were not implicated in any criminal activity.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned notification dated 29.09.2022 directing sealing/locking of petitioners' properties.

Hazrath Hameed Shah Khadri and Hazrath Muhib Shah… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45806 WP No. 3287 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3287 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HAZRATH HAMEED SHAH KHADRI AND HAZRATH, MUHIB SHAH KHADRI (RA ), DARGAHS AND ITS ALLIED INSTITUTIONS, NO.2, HHS AN HMS COMPLEX, CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. REPTD BY ITS ESTATE OFFICER.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. THANUJA M V., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD, OPP.SPARSHA HOSPITAL, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.SB/PROHIBITION/30/2022, DTD 29.09.2022 ANNEXUREB AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:45806 WP No. 3287 of 2024

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶23

The petitioners assert that they are the lawful owners of the subject properties. These properties were leased to individuals who are members of banned political parties. The tenants of these properties have faced criminal charges, which led to the issuance of the impugned notification, directing the sealing and locking of the subject properties on the grounds that they were occupied by individuals who are members of banned political parties and are facing criminal prosecution.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) representing the respondents.

¶25

It is undisputed that the petitioners themselves have not been implicated in any criminal activities. There is no allegation or evidence suggesting that the petitioners were involved in any unlawful conduct, apart from their landlordtenant relationship with the accused individuals. The sole connection between the petitioners and the members of the banned political parties is the lease arrangement, which, by itself, does not imply any complicity or involvement by the

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45806 WP No. 3287 of 2024

¶27

petitioners in criminal acts. Therefore, the impugned notification issued by respondent No.2, directing the sealing and locking of the petitioners’ properties, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and without any legal basis. Such action constitutes a violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights as property owners, particularly in the absence of any allegations of their direct involvement in illegal activities. Accordingly, I pass the following

¶28

ORDER

¶29

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶30

ii. The impugned notification dated 29.09.2022 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure B insofar it relates to petitioners' property is hereby quashed.

¶31

iii. The petitioners shall not lease the schedule properties to any person who are involved in unlawful activities or associated with any banned political parties.

¶32

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶33

TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Hazrath Hameed Shah Khadri and Hazrath Muhib Shah Khadri (Ra ) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazrath Hameed Shah Khadri and Hazrath Muhib Shah Khadri (Ra ) 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Cheftalk Food and Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Divya S Vs Canfin Homes Ltd.

Mrs Haseena Vs the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager

Smt Suguna Vs Can Fin Homes Ltd.

M/S Aplomb Builders and Developers Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Mr. Suryakanth Patil Vs Union of India