Disposed¶6

Mr. Umar Khatri v. the Station House Officer

Karnataka HC24 Apr 2025WP/10789/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ (GM-POLICE) under Articles 226/227; mandamus to consider representation dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure-G); land Sy.No.59, Sreeramanahalli village, Hesaraghatta hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk; title confirmed in SLP No.(C) 2051/2023; State Circular dated 14.11.2018 on grant of police protection; threat to possession by legal heirs of grantees; NCR on representation; WP No. 10789 of 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:16851; Umar Khatri; Rajanukunte Police Station; M. Nagaprasanna, J.; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner as and when sought, strictly in consonance with the State Circular dated 14.11.2018 for grant of police protection in such identical cases. ¶6

Mr. Umar Khatri Vs the Station House Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16851 WP No. 10789 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 10789 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. UMAR KHATRI, S/O. YUNUS KHATRI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 115, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER RAJANUKUNTE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K. S., AGA)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:16851 WP No. 10789 of 2025

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECITON TO THE R-1 TO CONSIDER HIS REPRESENTATION DATED 13.02.2025 VIDE ANNX-G AND CONSEQUENTLY TO PROVIDE POLICE PROTECTION AT THE TIME OF ERECTING COMPOUND FENCE IN LAND IN SY.NO. 59 SITUATED AT SREERAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayers:

¶25

"A. ISSUE a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the Respondent No.1 to consider his representation dated 13.02.2025 vide Annexure-G and consequently, to provide police protection at the time of erecting compound fence in land in Sy.No.59 situated at Sreeramanahalli village, Hesaraghatta hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

¶26

B. ISSUE any other Writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including an order as to costs."

¶27

Heard Sri. M.B. Chandrachooda, learned counsel

¶28

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Rahul Cariappa, learned AGA

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:16851 WP No. 10789 of 2025

¶31

appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶32

The averment in the petition is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in Sy.No.59 of Hesaraghatta Hobli measuring 2 acres. The property was the subject matter of several proceedings, which ended up to the Apex Court in SLP No.(C) 2051/2023, in which, the petitioner has found success and his purchase has been confirmed from the hands of his vendors, who were the purchasers from the hands of the grantee long ago. The issue is not with regard to the grant.

¶33

The petitioner has submitted a representation for grant of police protection for a particular purpose on the ground that his title has been perfected up to the judgments of the Apex Court, but the legal heirs of the grantees are troubling him. The representation has ended in an NCR. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner projects threat to the possession of the petitioner.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:16851 WP No. 10789 of 2025

¶37

In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct the

¶38

State to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner as and when sought, strictly in consonance with the Circular issued by the State on 14.11.2018 for grant of police protection in such identical cases.

¶39

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed.

¶40

SD/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57 CT: BHK

Mr. Umar Khatri v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Umar Khatri v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh M Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Sanjib K R Deori Vs the State of Karnataka

The Manager Vs Mr Rahul R M

Sri a R Kumata Ramaiah Vs Smt Renuka

Manja @ Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Umme Khair Vs the Malleshwaram Co-Operative Bank Ltd.