- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15170 WP No. 12020 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 12020 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. K. SAMEERNATH S/O. K.M. KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS NO.855, 25TH A MAIN ROAD, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR I BENGALURU - 560 102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU - 560 100 REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE 2. BENGALURU CITY POLICE INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU EAST KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034 Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15170 WP No. 12020 of 2023 4. SMT. SAKAMMA W/O. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 5. SMT. G. MANJAMMA W/O. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT BARADI VILLAGE MANDIGERE POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 6. SIVASIDDEGOWDA BASAVARAJU S/O. SIVASIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS NO.20/11, RUDRAPPA GARDEN I MAIN, KASTURBA NAGARA CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU - 560 018 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT NO. PAPS/GNL/86/2023 DTD 01.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15170 WP No. 12020 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is field seeking the following prayers: “(a) allow the writ petition, issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the endorsement No. PAPS/GNL/86/2023 dated 01.06.2023 issued by the First Respondent vide Annexure 'A'; [b] consequently, issue writ in the nature of mandamus to the First Respondent to give police protection to the Petitioner to comply with the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the BBMP, vide Annexure- 'L'; [c] Direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to investigate the matter and take appropriate disciplinary action against the First Respondent for his failure to discharge official duties; or (d) or in the alternative pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to pass on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he acquired title to the property bearing No.31, Khatha No.144, situated at Parappana Agrahara, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 40’ x 45’ (totally measuring 1800 sq. ft.), under the Sale Deed dated 20.05.1993. The mutation has also taken - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15170 WP No. 12020 of 2023 place in favour of the petitioner. Prior to the said area being handed over to BBMP for maintenance, the Petitioner obtained a building licence from Hongasandra Village Panchayat and commenced partial construction due to lack of sufficient funds. Subsequently, the area was handed over to BBMP for maintenance. The petitioner thereafter arranged funds to proceed with further construction. At that stage, the petitioner faced resistance from Smt. Sakamma and Smt. G. Manjamma, who claimed ownership over a portion of the petitioner’s property measuring 30' x 40' under a Sale Deed dated 07.01.2020 executed by one Sri T. Sunil. Consequently, the Petitioner filed O.S. No. 2136/2021 seeking a decree of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the trial Court granted an order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said order was challenged in appeal, however, the appeal was dismissed in MFA No. 4216/2022 dated 27.06.2022. 3. The petitioner filed a complaint before the first respondent/police on 16.03.2022, which was registered as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15170 WP No. 12020 of 2023 Crime No. 78/2022 against eight persons. As the Respondents failed to take up the investigation, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 10547/2022 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to conduct the investigation and file the final report. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 31.05.2022.It is submitted that, even as on date, the charge sheet is not filed. While the matter stood thus, at the instance of the defendants in the original suit, BBMP issued a provisional order dated 15.03.2023 under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 to the Petitioner, alleging that the Petitioner was carrying out construction without obtaining the requisite licence/approved plan from BBMP, and that the construction was therefore illegal. Pursuant thereto, BBMP called upon the petitioner to produce relevant documents and the petitioner appeared before the authority and submitted his explanation. Thereafter, an order was passed under Section 248(2) of the BBMP Act directing the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized construction. 4. The petitioner realized the mistake and took necessary steps to comply with the order passed by BBMP. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15170 WP No. 12020 of 2023 However, he again faced resistance from the defendants in the suit. Anticipating untoward incidents on 01.05.2023, the petitioner submitted a request to the first respondent/police seeking police protection to enable him to comply with the orders passed by BBMP under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020. The first respondent/police failed to receive the reques or acknowledge the request, let alone consider or grant the same. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner once again approached the first respondent/police. The Assistant Commissioner requested the concerned authority to look into the matter and, in turn, forwarded the petitioner’s representation dated 01.05.2023 to the first respondent/police with a request to look into the matter. Despite this, the petitioner approached the first respondent several times, but the first respondent/police was reluctant to listen to the plight of the petitioner and he was totally non-cooperative. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has come before this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent/police are obligated to provide adequate police protection to enable the petitioner to carry out - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15170 WP No. 12020 of 2023 demolition of the structure in compliance with the order passed by BBMP, particularly in view of resistance from the defendants in the suit. It is further submitted that, in light of the Circular dated 14.11.2018 issued by the Office of the Director General and Inspector General of Police and as per Clause 10 thereof, when a person produces an order issued by a competent Court, the Station House Officer shall not insist upon a specific direction from the Court for providing police protection. 7. It is submitted that such Court orders are required to be implemented scrupulously. If the order cannot be implemented on the ground due to any reason, the opinion of the Assistant Director of Prosecution/Deputy Director of Prosecution/Legal Advisor attached to the Office of the Commissioner of Police is to be obtained and appropriate action is to be taken in accordance with such opinion. Further, if the order still cannot be implemented for any reason, a report is required to be submitted to the concerned Court for consideration and further orders. 8. Relying on the said circular, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent police are obligated to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15170 WP No. 12020 of 2023 provide protection to the petitioner for carrying out demolition of the structure. He has further relied upon an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 20434/2023 dated 08.11.2023, wherein, based on the very same circular, the Court issued directions to the Station House Officer to take action in accordance with the circular dated 14.11.2018 and to provide police protection to the petitioner in accordance with law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both in the MFA as well as in the suit, there is an observation that the petitioner has put up the construction. 9. Learned HCGP submits that there is an interim injunction in force against the defendants and the suit is still pending consideration. It is further submitted that there is no specific order of the Civil Court directing the police to provide assistance for demolition of the structure. In such circumstances, Condition No. 10 of the circular would not come to the rescue of the Petitioner. It is also contended that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as, in the said case, the rights of the parties had been crystallized, whereas in the present case, the suit is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15170 WP No. 12020 of 2023 still pending adjudication. As such, Condition No.10 in the circular will not come to the rescue of the petitioner. It is submitted that even the judgment relied on by the petitioner does not ensure to his benefit, for the reason that in the said judgment, the rights of the parties are crystallized, whereas in this case, the suit is still pending. Therefore, in these circumstances, the respondents have issued the impugned endorsement stating that the dispute is civil in nature and that the petitioner ought to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. 10. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. 11. According to the petitioner, it is his case that the BBMP directed him to remove the unauthorized construction. It is the case of the defendants that they have put up the construction, whereas according to the petitioner, he has put up the construction. When the petitioner wants to remove the unauthorized construction, the defendants are interfering with the same. The petitioner has filed a suit for injunction and an interim injunction has been granted, which has attained finality. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15170 WP No. 12020 of 2023 If the defendants, in violation of the orders of the Civil Court, interfere with the possession of the petitioner or otherwise act contrary to the interim orders passed, the petitioner has a remedy to approach the Court and obtain necessary orders. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the endorsement issued by the respondents stating that the dispute is civil in nature and that they cannot grant the protection sought by the petitioner is justified and this Court finds no reason to interfere. 13. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. The petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court. iii. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24