M/S AMRUTH HOMES PVT. LTD. v. NONE

#6. SMT. USHA RANI, W/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT No.635/A, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560069. (BY SRI R.A. MACHAKANUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI B.D. KRISHNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6 ) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS FROM INITIATING ANY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 15.02.2019 FOUND AT ANNEXURE- M AND IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 23.02.2019 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-P ISSUED BY R-4, AND THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 23.02.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-Q ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6011 WP No. 9967 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. A. Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. R. A. Machakanur, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. B. D. Krishnegowda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

#2. The present writ petition challenges the notices issued by the respondent authorities dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure-M), 23.02.2019 (Annexure-P), and 23.02.2019 (Annexure-Q).

#3. The petitioner contends that he entered into a Joint Development Agreement on 20.05.2010 with Sri C.H. Govindappa and others concerning the lands bearing Survey Nos. 68/1, 69/2, 94/2, and 70, situated in Chikkanagamangala Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6011 WP No. 9967 of 2019

#4. Respondent No. 5 has filed O.S. No. 498/2018, which is currently pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, claiming rights over the land in Survey Nos. 69/1 and 69/2 of Chikkanagamangala Village, which forms part of the Joint Development Agreement.

#5. Respondent No. 5 filed a complaint dated

03.12.2018 before Respondent No. 1 - Commission, alleging that the petitioner had illegally encroached upon her property. Respondent No. 1 conducted an inquiry through the police, and based on the report dated

24.12.2018 submitted by the Police Inspector of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru City, the proceedings were closed with the conclusion that the matter pertains to a civil dispute pending before the civil court, and therefore, no action could be taken.

#6. In the meantime, the complaint dated

03.12.2018 was also forwarded to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. In response, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 issued multiple notices to conduct an inquiry into the said complaint, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6011 WP No. 9967 of 2019 latest being the notice dated 23.02.2019, marked as Annexure-P. However, in light of the final report submitted to the Commission, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not pursue the inquiry further. Meanwhile, Respondent No. 6 filed a separate complaint on 23.01.2019, following which Respondent No. 2 directed an inquiry into the matter. Consequently, a notice dated 23.02.2019, marked as Annexure-Q, was issued in relation to the inquiry concerning the complaint dated 23.01.2019.

#7. Sri A. Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the entire dispute pertains to forming part of the Joint Development Agreement. He contends that the petitioner, along with Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, is already before the civil court in O.S. No. 498/2018. However, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, taking undue advantage of statutory protection, have been filing frivolous complaints alleging verbal abuse. It is further submitted that the complaint was investigated by the Parappana Agrahara Police, and a report was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6011 WP No. 9967 of 2019 submitted, which indicates that the dispute between the parties solely concerns a land dispute and does not involve any other issue.

#8. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint dated 23.01.2019, pursuant to which the notice at Annexure-Q was issued, is not a genuine complaint. He contends that the allegation of verbal abuse was already investigated at the instance of Respondent No. 1, and a second complaint on the same issue by the same parties, i.e., Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, is not maintainable. Therefore, the notice issued by Respondent No. 2 is without jurisdiction.

#9. Sri R.A. Machakanur, learned AGA appearing for the respondent authorities, submits that the complaint dated 23.01.2019 was investigated by the police, and a report was submitted on 20.01.2020 by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 1. The report concludes that the allegations of verbal abuse were not substantiated, leading to the closure of the complaint. Regarding the land - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6011 WP No. 9967 of 2019 dispute, it is stated that the matter is pending before the civil court, and the authorities have no jurisdiction to investigate the same.

#10. Sri B.D. Krishnegowda, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, submits that the complaint dated 03.12.2018, which was investigated by the Parappana Agrahara Police, pertained solely to the alleged encroachment on the lands of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. However, the complaint dated 23.01.2019 arose from a subsequent event, specifically alleging verbal abuse by representatives of the petitioner-company and other agents acting on its behalf.

#11. He further contends that, due to the interim order of stay granted by this Court, no effective inquiry was conducted into the complaint dated 23.01.2019. The report dated 21.01.2020, which closed the said complaint, was prepared without affording an opportunity Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to present their case. Additionally, he argues that, since the petitioner was not - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6011 WP No. 9967 of 2019 subjected to inquiry during the closure of the complaint, the report dated 21.01.2020 is neither comprehensive nor capable of adequately addressing the grievances raised. Moreover, he submits that, as report dated

20.01.2020 was not communicated to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, they have been deprived of the opportunity to further agitate their rights.

#12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

#13. The writ petition challenges two notices issued in response to two separate complaints dated 03.12.2018 and 23.01.2019. However, the challenge to Annexure-P, dated 23.02.2019, does not warrant further consideration, as the Parappana Agrahara Police submitted a report to Respondent No. 1 - Commission on 24.12.2018, effectively closing the matter.

#14. With regard to the notice at Annexure-Q, dated

23.02.2019, issued pursuant to the complaint dated - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6011 WP No. 9967 of 2019

23.01.2019 by Respondent No. 3, the records submitted by the learned AGA finds a report dated 20.01.2020, wherein Respondent No. 3 submitted findings Respondent No. 2, concluding that the allegations were not substantiated and closing the complaint. In light of the report dated 20.01.2020, the notice at Annexure-Q also does not warrant further consideration.

#15. However, it is to be noted that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were not granted an opportunity to be heard by Respondent No. 3 while conducting inquiry. Additionally, the report concluding the closure of the complaint was not communicated to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. As a result, they have been deprived of the opportunity to further agitate their rights. In view of this, it is necessary to protect the further rights available to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Accordingly, the following order is passed: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6011 WP No. 9967 of 2019 O R D E R Writ petition is partly allowed. (i) The notices issued by respondent authorities dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure-M),

23.02.2019 (Annexure-P), and 23.02.2019 (Annexure-Q) are hereby quashed. (ii) Respondent No. 3 shall communicate the report dated 20.01.2020 or any other subsequent decision taken on the complaint to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. (iii) Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are at liberty to pursue their remedies as available in law against the closure of the complaint. (iv) No opinion is expressed by this Court. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE