M.MUNIRAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of 2 acres 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.79 of Neelasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and that proceedings under Sec. 136 (3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 regarding the said property is pending before respondent No.2. When that is the situation, respondent No.2 has addressed a letter to Deputy Police Commissioner dtd. 12/11/2020 (vide Annexure-G to the writ petition) and has also issued an endorsement dtd. 12/11/2020 (vide Annexure-H to the writ petition), wherein, it has been ordered for completing the construction of compound wall of the property of Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple situated in Tigalarapet and seeking police protection for the same. On the ground that the compound wall being constructed encroaches upon the property of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed praying for setting aside the aforementioned letter and endorsement issued by respondent No.2 and also for a direction not to dispossess the petitioner from his land measuring 2 acres 3 guntas.

(2.) The learned AGA for the respondents upon instructions submits that the land comes within the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and is not an agricultural land and in fact, the same is situated in the heart of Bengaluru City. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the property concerned and that if he has any right over the same, he is at liberty to approach the Civil Court to redress his grievance. It is also submitted that the impugned letter and endorsement pertain to construction of a compound wall in respect of a temple property and the same does not encroach upon any private property. For the said reasons, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) Admittedly, the impugned letter and endorsement pertain to construction of a compound wall on the boundary of Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple land. The said property is situated in the heart of Bengaluru City and it has lost the characteristics of an agricultural land. Further, the letter at Annexure-G to the writ petition is an internal communication between respondent No.2 and Deputy Police Commissioner. Similarly, the endorsement at Annexure-H to the writ petition pertains to completing the construction of the compound wall. The same have been issued in the year 2020 and in all probability the work is already completed. The question of setting them aside does not arise. The petitioner has failed to make out a case as to how the said letter and endorsement infringe upon any of his rights. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any actions of the respondent authorities and if their actions has the effect of infringing upon his rights over his property, he is always at liberty to approach the Civil Court in the manner known to law.