Karnataka High Court
WP/35982/2024 of SRI MAHALINGAPPA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 31 December 2024
2024:KHC:53353 WP No. 35982 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35982 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SON OF LATE NARASAIAH, R/AT NO.53,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ -WRIT PETITION NO. 35982 OF 2024 (GMPOLICE)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SON OF LATE NARASAIAH, R/AT NO.53, 9TH MAIN ROAD, GANESHA BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 096.
4. SMT. LAKSHMI,
WIFE OF ANANDA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1730, 2ND BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA OR R1 TO R3; R4 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2024)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-2 AND 3 TO STOP THE CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE R-4 OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN PURSUANT TO REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNEXURES -H1 DATED 19.12.2024 AND ANNEXURES -H2 DATED 24.12.2024 BY COMPLYING THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE -F BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondents No.1 to 3. respondents No.1 to 3.
2. Notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. of the proposed order to be passed.
3. The petitioner is seeking for a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to restrain respondent No.4
from putting up construction on the schedule property.
4. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 as regard the same property is already pending before this Court in RFA No.171/2019. The present writ petition is therefore not maintainable. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file necessary application in RFA No.171/2019, the petition stands No.4 as regard the same property is already pending before this Court in RFA No.171/2019. The present writ petition is therefore not maintainable. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file necessary application in RFA No.171/2019, the petition stands disposed of.
5. However, it is needless to mention that if any complaint is filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional police authority, the police authority would have to look into the same and take necessary action. complaint is filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional police authority, the police authority would have to look into the same and take necessary action.
SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
SNC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 88 CT: BHK