PRAKSH K R Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent No. 1 to 5. He is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks. Considering the nature of disposal, notice to respondents No. 6 and 7 is unnecessary. The petitioners are before this Court seeking consideration of their representation as at Annexures-X2, X3 and X4 and to take appropriate legal action against respondents No. 6 and 7. Certain other directions have also been sought in the instant petitions.

(2.) A perusal of the contentions put forth by the petitioners would indicate that the petitioners claim to be in possession and enjoyment of certain sites said to have been formed in property bearing Sy. No. 7, New No. 7/27, Herohalli Village, Viswaneedam Post, Yeshwanthpur Hobli. Certain transactions relating to the manner in which the sale deeds were executed from the year 1960 have been referred to. Presently, the grievance put forth by the petitioners is that though they are small property holders and are in possession of the properties, certain persons who have no manner of right, more particularly respondents No. 6 and 7 herein have sought to disturb their possession. The grievance is that despite the petitioners having approached the jurisdictional police, no action was taken and therefore the representations to the higher police Authorities have been made. Since the same have not evoked any response, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) In the light of the said contentions, I have also perused the representations said to have been made by the petitioners. Firstly, it is to be noticed that the representations are filed as far back as during March 2013. A perusal at the outset would indicate that the representation also refers to certain transactions relating to the properties and contending that even though there was some disturbance created by unruly elements at the behest of land mafia and even though the petitioners had approached the Byadarahalli Police Station, no action was taken but the Police Authorities had in fact supported the offenders. Having noticed what has been stated in the representations, it would indicate that there are two aspects which are required to be looked at. Firstly, the petitioners claim right to the properties regarding which a reference has been made in the petitions and the documents have been relied on. If the grievance of the petitioners is to the extent that there are certain attempts to dislodge from the properties or there is encroachment by the third parties and interference with rights relating to the immovable properties is put forth, certainly the Police Authorities would not be in a position to decide the same as it would have to be done by the Civil Court. However, the later part of the representations would indicate that there has been certain attempts to threaten the petitioners, where the petitioners apprehend physical danger and also danger to their lives. In that regard, it is also their grievance that they had approached the jurisdictional police but no action was taken. The factual aspect relating to the same in any event cannot be decided at this juncture. Therefore, no decision could be rendered by this Court on merits with regard to the actual nature of the grievance.