SRI C v. JAYARAME GOWDA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
(i) Writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Judgment
SRI C. V. JAYARAME GOWDA, S/O LATE. VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT CHALLAPALLI VILLAGE, ALANGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563131. (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K.,ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME. 2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY.
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA STATE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35097 WP No. 19194 of 2026 HC-KAR
THE HOUSE STATION OFFICER NANGALI POLICE STATION, NANGALI, MULBAGAL TALUK. KOLAR DISTRICT-563132.
SRI. SUBBARAYAPPA S/O LATE. A.K. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT DODDATHAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563131.
SRI BHASKAR S/O LATE SRIRAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE SRIRAMAPPA , AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT DODDATHAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563131. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION ON THE COMPLAINTS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 30/05/2026 AND 16/06/2026, WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND J, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35097 WP No. 19194 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order, directing the respondent No.1 to 3 to take suitable action оп the complaints of the petitioner dated:30/05/2026 and 16/06/2026, which are produced at Annexure-A & J, in accordance with law. ii) Consequently, issue proper direction to the respondent No.1 to 3 to extend police protection to the petitioner and his property bearing Sy. No.8, measuring 2 Acres 0-34 Guntas of land Situated at Challapalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk. Kolar District compliance of the court order dated:02/02/2026 passed in M.A. No.09/2020 which his produced at Annexure-H. iii) Pass such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to be awarded including cost of the proceedings in the interest of justice and equity. "
2. The grievance of the petitioner complaints submitted by the petitioner on 30.05.2026,
16.06.2026 at Annexures-A and J have not been acted upon by the respondents and police protection is not - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35097 WP No. 19194 of 2026 HC-KAR provided to the petitioner despite the injunction order passed in MA No.9/2020.
3. A perusal of the appeal papers indicate that a final order has been passed in MA No.9/2020 restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. When such an order has been passed by the First Appellate Court in MA No.9/2020, it is but required for the police authorities to implement the said order.
Operative part
4. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) A mandamus is issued directing respondents to provide necessary police protection implement the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-Mulbagal in - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35097 WP No. 19194 of 2026 HC-KAR MA No.9/2020 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (i) Writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 30 May 2026. The bench was SENIOR CIVIL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.