GOWRAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION. DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK AND MASTER MANJUNATH R., S/O LATE M. RAJANNA AND SMT. PREMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus against the 1st respondent - State represented by Devanahalli Police Station, Bangalore North Taluk, not to interfere or create disturbance in the property of the petitioners and permit the petitioners to earry on the construction activities.

(2.) IT is the ease of the petitioners that they are the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.431/2009 which is filed by the 2nd respondent herein seeking partition and separate possession of the joint family properties. It is their further case that in the said suit, the plain tiff has deleted the 2nd defendant - Munivenkatappa under whom all these petitioners claim right and therefore no suit is pending against the petitioners herein. According to the petitioners, interim order of temporary injunction obtained by the plaintiff in the said suit is not binding on the petitioners as their father who was earlier made a party as defendant No.2 has been deleted and the interim injunction is granted only against the other defendants therein. Despite the same, it is urged that the 1st respondent - Devanahalli Police at the instance of the plaintiff are preventing the petitioners herein from proceeding with the construction in the land in question in the guise of the order of temporary injunction granted by the Civil Court in favour of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 431 /2009.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that if there is no interim order of injunction operating against the petitioners and if the 1st respondent - Police are in fact preventing the petitioners from proceeding with the construction activities, petitioners have to bring this to the notice of the Higher Authorities. They cannot rush to this Court: without laying any such foundation for their grievance. Admittedly, no such representation is addressed and no such grievance is made before the Higher Authorities.