IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
B. VEERAPPA, J.
MAREPPA — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent
Writ Petition No. 201784 of 2017
Decided on : 05-06-2017
Complainant lodged complaint on particular date and subsequent to higher authorities including Deputy Commissioner, Human Rights and Office of Chief Minister who directed to register case. In spite of same, Sub-Inspector has not registered case without any reason and reasons mentioned in personal affidavit is not basis to refuse to register complaint lodged by complainant. Complainant has made out judicial enforceable right as well as legal protected right before suffering legal grievance can ask for Writ of Mandamus. Person said to be aggrieved only when denied legal right by some one whose legal duty to do same thing or to abstain from doing same thing. In present case complainant has made out a legal right and legal right has not been discharged by Sub-Inspector. AIR 2014 SC 187, Rel. on.
B. Veerappa, J.
The unfortunate citizen of the State is before this Court for Writ of Mandamus for non-registration of F.I.R. directing the Respondent No. 4 to register the FIR on the basis of complaint filed by him as per Annexure- C dated 28.12.2016 and hold enquiry in accordance with law.
I. Brief Facts of The Case
2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No. 222 of Naribole village, Jewargi taluka, Kalaburagi district totally measuring 14 acres 18 guntas along with one Tippanna s/o Mareppa Talwar and the said land being cultivating by the petitioner by raising thor dal, jawar crops. The RTC extracts produced to show that he is owner and in possession of the said property as per Annexure-A.
3. The things stood thus, one Sharanappa s/o Sabanna filed an application before the Tahasildar claiming that he is owner of the said land. The Tahasildar without notice to the petitioner in connivance with the officers got his name entered in the Record of Rights. The said order of Tahasildar was subject-matter of the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Kalaburagi. The Assistant Commissioner, Kalaburagi after hearing both the parties was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Tahasildar and directed to restore the name of petitioner and the said order has been reached finality. In spite of the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the said Sharanappa was interfered with the cultivation of the land by the petitioner and during the year 2016 he has cultivated jawar in his land and apprehended his crops may be harvested by said Sharanappa with the help of goonda elements. Hence, he made an application on 16.12.2016 to the Tahasildar requesting to provide protection for harvesting his crops. Accordingly the Tahasildar addressed a letter to the Jewargi police directing them to provide police protection to them on 20.06.2016 as per Annexure-B.
4. In spite of the said direction issued by the Tahasildar, the 4th Respondent/Jewargi police has not provided police protection. In the meanwhile the said Sharanappa along with 13 other persons entered the field of petitioner on 28.12.2016 along with the Punjab harvesting machine and got harvested the yield by threatening the petitioner and his family members with lethal weapons and took away the harvested crops. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach PSI Jewargi/4th Respondent and lodged a complaint to take action against accused persons and return his harvested crops. The complaint copy also submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Kalabur-agi, Inspector General of Police, Kalaburagi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Grameena, Kalaburagi, Circle Inspector of Police, Jewargi. The copy of the complaint is produced as per Annexure-C.
5. Since 4th Respondent has not taken any action on the basis of the complaint either by the Tahasildar or the PSI, Jewargi, the petitioner once again addressed his grievance to the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi referring to the above mentioned complaint made by him, but no action has been taken in this regard. The copy of the complaint addressed to the Superintendent of Police on 30.12.2016 produced as per Annexure-D.
6. On the basis of the complaint by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburagi addressed a letter dated 16.01.2017 to the Superintendent of Police Kalaburagi and requested to look into the complaint of the petitioner dated 30.12.2016 and take necessary action as per law. The copy of the said letter by the Deputy Commissioner addressed to the Superintendent of Police on 16.01.2017 is produced at Annexure-E.
7. It is further case of the petitioner that in spite of direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner, even the Superintendent of Police did not take any action on the basis of complaint filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner waiting for a month and again addressed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 06.02.2017 reiterating the complaint averments stated that the
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1
Mohindro v. State of Punjab and others
Ramesh Kumari v. State of (NCT of Delhi) and others
Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (AIR 2008 SC 907)
Swedish Match AB v. SEBI (2004) 11 SCC 641. (AIR 2004 SC 4219)
Superintendent of Police, CBI and others v. Tapan Kumar Singh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.