ERAMMA Vs. K. MAREMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this writ petition have sought for quashing the order dated 10 -9 -2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner allowing the application filed for Police protection. The main grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is contrary to law, no opportunity was given to the petitioners to substantiate their possession and the order is not a speaking order.

(2.) Learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 contended that on the appeal filed by the respondents 1 and 2 under Sec. 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Assistant Commissioner initially stayed the order. Inspite of that, the respondent in the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner is trying to interfere with the possession. In view of the same, application is filed for Police protection for enforcement of the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents argued in support of the order passed by the respondent 3.