IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT PETITION NO.52846 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

A.N. VASANTHA MADHAVA RAO
S/O. LATE A.N. HANUAMANTHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
RESIDENT OF KOTE ROAD,HONNALLI – 577 217
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT…. PETITIONER

(BY SRI S. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
M.S. BUILDING,DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,
2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS,SARASWATHINAGAR, B – BLOCK,DAVANAGERE – 577 002.

3. TAHASILDHAR,HONNALI TALUK,

HONNALI – 577 217
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

4. REVENUE INSPECTOR
KASABA HOBLI,HONNALI TALUK,HONNALI – 577 217
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

5. MANJUNATHA
S/O. LATE T. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O. CHIKKAGONIGERE VILLAGE,KASABA HOBLI,HONNALI TALUK – 577 217. DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

6. MAHESHWARAPPA
S/O. MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O. CHIKKAGONIGERE VILLAGE,KASABA HOBLI,HONNALI TALUK – 577217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT…. RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI M. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; R-6 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-2 ADDRESSED TO THE R-3 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-T TO THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is assailing the communication dated 29.08.2016 issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto as per Annexure-T.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the absolute owner in cultivation of the lands in Sy.Nos.20, 31 and 40 of Chikkagonigere Village of Honnali Taluk (hereinafter referred to as “the petition lands” for short). It is stated that the said lands along with the lands in Sy.No.44, were annexed to the Village Patel Office of Chikkagonigere Village under the provision of the then Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908 and in view of the abolition of the Village Offices and on enactment of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (“Abolition Act, 1961” for short) and the provisions were made to re- grant the land to the persons who were holding the office on the appointed day. It is stated that one Raghavendrachar was a person who was holding the office of Patel of Chikkagonigere Village and his wife Radha Bai who had no issues made an application seeking re-grant of the lands in Sy.Nos.20, 31, 40 and 44 under the Abolition Act, 1961. In the first instance, the Tahsildar had re- granted the land in favour of Radha Bai and one Nagendrappa assailed the said order before the District Judge, Shivamogga. The District Judge remanded the matter to the Tahsildar to consider the claim of Radha Bai and Nagendrappa in respect of land Sy.No.44. On remand, the Tahsildar rejected the claim of Radha Bai in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.20, 21, and 40.

3. Aggrieved by which, an appeal was preferred before the District Court, the District Judge by his order on contest, set aside the order of the Tahsildar and confirmed the earlier order of the Tahsildar of the year 1981 and held that the re-granting of lands in favour of Radha Bai was confirmed. It is stated that Radha Bai has bequeathed the petition properties in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner sought to enter his name in the revenue records and approached the Tahsildar. The said change of khatha was opposed by the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6. The Tahsidlar, after holding enquiry directed to enter the name of the petitioner in the petition lands. Assailing the said order, father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner remanded the matter to consider afresh regarding the entry in the name of the parties. The same was assailed by filing revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, by the petitioner. The said revision petition came to be dismissed and aggrieved by which, the writ petition came to be preferred before this Court and this Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the revision petition after affording sufficient opportunity.

4. It appears that, in the meantime petitioner filed a suit seeking for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of the suit lands. The suit was contested by the respondents and on contest, the trial Court considering the material on record and holding the prima facie case established by the petitioner, decreed the suit restraining respondent Nos.5 and 6 from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.137/2010. This being so, it appears that one Thimmappa also filed a suit for declaration in respect of Sy.No.31, measuring 4 acres 38 guntas before the Civil Judge, Honnali against the petitioner and the same is pending consideration. filed a complaint before respondent No.2 – Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement and the complaint has been entertained and the communication is forwarded to respondent No.3 to furnish the information about the persons who owns the land in Sy.Nos.20, 31, 40 and 44 of Chikkagonigere village and to furnish information as to who is in possession of the aforesaid lands and also the caste of the persons who are in possession of the said lands and also documents in proof of their title and possession of the parties over the said lands. It is stated that the petitioner was summoned by respondent No.2, statement was recorded, inspite of the petitioner bringing to the notice of respondent No.2 that the lands in question were seized by the Civil Court, respondent No.2 has insisted respondent No.3 to furnish the information in the communication addressed at Annexure – T, pursuant to which respondent No.4 – Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish the records and also the information about the ownership and the title over the said lands. The Village Accountant has also gone to the extent of drawing mahazar of the land in question, to find out as to who is in possession of the aforementioned lands in order to submit the same to respondent No.2.

6. No statement of objections has been filed by the State in order to substantiate their action as per Annexure-T. Respondent No.6 though served has chosen to remain unrepresented, respondent No.5 appeared through advocate has filed statement of objections.

7. Heard learned counsel Sri S. Rajendra appearing for Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soodi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as Sri M. Prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent No.5

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to various other contentions raised in the petition, the prime contention of the petitioner is that, the entire action on the part of respondent No.2 is one without jurisdiction and the entertaining of the complaint by respondent No.2 and pursuant to which, the entire action taken is in violation of the personal liberty of the petitioner and more so, respondent No.2 being appointed by the State in order to see the implementation of the provisions of the protection of the civil right could not have ventured to enter upon the civil dispute between the parties in respect of the immovable property when the parties are already before the Civil Court.

9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the entire act on the part of respondent No.2 is on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

10. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed the suit in O.S. No.137/2010 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants – respondent Nos.5 and 6 who were parties in the suit from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the petition properties were subject matter of the said suit. The said suit came to be decreed holding that the petitioner-plaintiff therein has prima facie established his lawful possession over the suit schedule property. The material on record also evidence that, the petitioner had brought to the notice of respondent No.2 with regard to title and possession of the petitioner over the lands in question having been seized by the Civil Court and inspite of which, respondent No.2 being Superintendent of Police has interfered with the Civil Rights of the parties.

12. The Civil Right Enforcement Cell was established by the State in the year 1974 for effective implementation of provisions of Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 (Act No.22 of 1955) and also to achieve better overall control over the Superintendent of Police of the District. The real object behind creation of Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell is to bring about enforcement of the provisions of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and to deal with the cases of harassment and atrocities against the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe and respondent No.2 has no power to venture into the jurisdiction to decide the rights of the parties in respect of the properties, which are already before the Civil Court, irrespective of the fact that either of the parties of the litigation belonged to Scheduled Caste community and respondent No.2 lacks jurisdiction to decide the alleged rights of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of the aforementioned lands.

13. Respondent No.2 not only summoned the petitioner and recorded his statement and further, inspite of the petitioner bringing to the notice of respondent No.2 regarding the rights of the parties having been adjudicated in the Civil Court, respondent No.2 initiated the proceedings and directed respondent No.3 to furnish information of the aforesaid lands and to conduct mahazar and to find out who is in possession of the lands. The entire act on the part of respondent No.2 is one without jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. In matters involving civil rights or disputes regarding title and possession over the property, the police or the revenue authorities i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot be the adjudicators of such dispute inter se, between the parties either regarding possession or even regarding the boundaries. The duties of the police is to maintain the law and order, but there are instances where the citizens complain about the police atrocities committed in utter disregard and without considering the duties which are envisaged upon the police to maintain law and order, the present case is one such example to that effect.

14. Broadly speaking, the twin roles, which the police are expected to play in a society is to maintain law and order. Section 65 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 of Chapter VI contemplates the executive powers and duties of the police, which reads as under:

“65. Duties of a Police Officer.–It shall be the duty of every Police Officer,–
(a) promptly to serve every summons and obey and execute every warrant or other order lawfully issued to him by competent authority, and to endeavour by all lawful means to give effect to the lawful commands of his superior;
(b) to the best of his ability to obtain intelligence concerning the commission of cognizable offences or designs to commit such offences;
(c) to lay such information and to take such other steps, consistent with law and with the orders of his superiors, as shall be best calculated to bring offenders to justice;
(d) to prevent the commission of offences; (da) to prevent the breach of the public peace;
(e) to prevent to the best of his ability the commission of public nuisances;
(f) to apprehend without unreasonable delay all persons whom he is legally authorised to apprehend and for whose apprehension there is sufficient reason;
(g) to aid another Police Officer when called on by him or in case of need in the discharge of his duty, in such ways as would be lawful and reasonable on the part of the officer aided;
(h) to discharge such duties as are imposed upon him by any law for the time being in force.
(i) to communicate without delay to the appropriate officer of a local authority any information which he receives, of the design to commit or of the commission of any offence under the relevant law constituting such local authority or under any rule, bye-law or regulation made under such law;
(j) to assist any officer or servant of a local authority or any person to whom the powers of such officer or servant has been lawfully delegated, reasonably demanding his aid for the lawful exercise of any power vesting in such officer or servant of the local authority, or such person, under the relevant law constituting such local authority or under any rule, bye-law or regulation made under such law.”

And Section 68 envisages the duties of the police officers towards the public, which reads as under:

“68. Duties of Police Officers towards the public.–It shall be the duty of every Police Officer,–
(a) to afford every assistance within his power to disabled or helpless persons in the streets, and to take charge of intoxicated persons and of lunatics at large who appear dangerous or incapable of taking care of themselves;
(b) to take prompt measures to procure necessary help for any person under arrest or in custody, who is wounded or sick and whilst guarding or conducting any such person, to have due regard to his condition;
(c) to arrange for the proper sustenance and shelter of every person who is under arrest or in custody;
(d) in conducting searches, to refrain from needless rudeness and the causing of unnecessary annoyance;
(e) in dealing with women and children to act with strict regard to decency and with reasonable gentleness;
(f) to use his best endeavors to prevent any loss or damage by fire;
(g) to use his best endeavor to avert any accident or danger to the public.”

15. The powers and the duties of the police officers including the superior officers and subordinate police officers have been mentioned in the Karnataka Police Manual. In the present case, it is necessary to take into consideration the powers and duties of the subordinate police officer as mentioned in Chapter VI of the Karnataka Police Manual. The entire reading of the powers, duties enumerated on the police officer do not mention about the duties or powers with regard to interference of the matters which are of civil nature and the duties mentioned above which is casted on the police officer, is to prevent breach of peace or commission of cognizable offences, and to preserve law and order.

16. It is also brought to the notice of this Court the guidelines notified by the office of the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Government of Karnataka which directs restraint upon the police from interfering in civil disputes between parties. The preamble of the guidelines reads as follows:

“Sub: Guidelines to be followed by Police Officers while dealing with Disputes and matters related to Land and Buildings.
It is observed that a large number of persons are approaching Police Stations in connection with disputes and matters related to the land (Agricultural land, non-agricultural land, buildings and sites). It is also alleged repeatedly in press as well as by the members of public and on the floor of the legislature that the Police Officers have converted their Police Stations in State to settle land disputes and are taking huge amounts of illegal gratification for settling the land disputes. This / her does not augur well for the department. As such, it is necessary to issue a set of guidelines to all Police Officers in the State to follow, while dealing with complaints regarding land disputes and matters related to land. Hence, the following guidelines are hereby issued to all Police Officers in the State for their information and strict compliance:-

The guidelines further read as follows:

OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND.
1.1 The ownership and possession rights in respect of a particular Agricultural land are clearly mentioned in the Record of Rights published under Rule 61 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, Under rule 62 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, the Record of Rights are maintained by the Tahsildars of the Taluk in Form No.16. the ownership of a land is indicated in Column No.1a and the possession of the land is indicated in Column No.12 of the Record of Rights. The Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act reads as follows:-

“133. Presumption regarding entries in the records- An entry in the Record of Rights and a certified entry in the Register of Mutations 1 (or in a Patta Book) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or an new entry is lawfully substituted there for”

1.2 In view of the above provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, it is clear that the ownership and possession of agricultural land is to be determined solely on the basis of the Record of Rights pertaining to the concerned land. Under the circumstances, the Police Officers should give protection to the party, which has got its name entered into column No.1a and column No.12 of the Record of Rights.”

17. The guidelines are issued to all the police officers in the State to follow, while dealing with complaints regarding lands disputes and matter related to law. Respondent No.2 notwithstanding the guidelines in subsistence has interfered with petitioner’s possession.

18. The police officers have no role to play in civil disputes, taking sides in such disputes, coercing persons to settle their differences or withdraw legitimate prosecution or civil suits or to execute documents under Negotiable Instruments Act, this is definitely not the job of the police. The act of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is one without authority and the entire action on the part of these respondents is without there being any competent jurisdiction for them to do so. The matters of such nature are essentially within the domain of the Civil Courts and it is definitely the function of the Court of Justice to redress the grievance of the parties and decide their rights and not the police as in the present case. It is totally against the rule of law, if the right of the police is to be used in favour of one party against another without an adjudication by any appropriate authority of the rights of either side. The police officers cannot interfere in the civil matters and the interference of the police would be only if law and order situation demands and not otherwise.

19. Therefore, it is appropriate to remind the Police Department/Officers that, when any dispute arise between two parties with regard to the Civil Rights, i.e., either for declaration of title or possession over the properties or any other rights, which is of a civil nature, the police have no right to ask for documents from the parties in the name of adjudication and the police have no power to decide the civil rights of the parties and it is only the jurisdictional Civil Court, who is the Competent Adjudicating Authority to decide the same and not the police. It is the duty of the Department of Home Affairs to ensure that the police officers shall not interfere with the civil disputes and the Department of Home Affairs shall circulate the instruction/circular in this regard.

20. For the reasons stated above, the manner in which respondent Nos.2 to 4 have proceeded to pass the impugned communication and the proceedings initiated thereto needs to be quashed. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned communication dated 29.08.2016 issued by respondent No.2 addressed to respondent No.3 and all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure – T are hereby by set aside.

Sd/-

JUDGE