Karnataka High Court
WRIT PETITION 100262 of 2018 on 28 December 2017
2025:KHC-D:4174
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4[TH] DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI -WRIT PETITION NO. 100262 OF 2018 (GMPOLICE)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. MOULALI S/O MADARSAB PATEL, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BANGLE BUSINESS, R/O KIRAVATTI, TQ: YALLAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
(BY SRI. ZANZA JOSHI., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT., ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONER
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01. REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.
Digitally signed byPREMCHANDRA M RLocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR. UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR.
3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, YALLAPUR POLICE STATION, YALLAPUR, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR. YALLAPUR POLICE STATION, YALLAPUR, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR.
4. MOULALI S/O MAHAMOOD PATEL,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KIRAVATTI, TQ: YALLAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. R/O: KIRAVATTI, TQ: YALLAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
5. KHAMARUDDIN S/O SULTANSAB FALLAM,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: SADARSOFA, NEAR KHABARASTAN,
OLD-HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, PH: 08123878114.
Page 1 of 3
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN.K.UPPAR., AGA FOR R1-3; R4-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; PETITION AGAINST R5 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Zanza Joshi., counsel on behalf of Sri.Gourishankar H.Mot., for the petitioner and Sri.Praveen K.Uppar, AGA for respondents 1 to 3 have appeared in person.
2. The caption Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of cancellation of respondent No.2 dated 28.12.2017 vide Annexure-A and to issue writ of mandamus and directions may please be issued respondent No.2 to give protection for demolition of the said dilapidated condition building, by accepting the amount already deposited by the petitioner vide letter dated 22.12.2017 vide Annexure-H.
- 3 -
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in question. He intends to demolish his building. However, he apprehends that 4[th] respondent may intervene in the process of demolition. Hence, he was compelled to make a request to the Police Department to provide police protection.
5. By way of reply, AGA submits that a detailed statement of objections is filed and the same may be taken note of. He argued by saying that as per the contents of the petitioner himself, there is a dispute regarding the title between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Under these circumstances, the police protection cannot be given in respect of disputed property. AGA therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed.
Page 2 of 3
6. The issue follows on a narrow compass and relates to a police protection. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the property in question. As per his own statement, there is a disputed question of title between himself and the 4[th]respondent. Hence, the disputed questions of fact cannot be considered in a writ petition. The law is well settled that the disputed question of facts cannot be investigated under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to give a police protection for the demolition of dilapidated building which is under dispute cannot be accorded. Hence, I decline to exercise power under the writ jurisdiction.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.
Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE
MRP,CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…