M/S Besto Mining INDIA Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, including M/s Besto Mining India Private Limited and several stone crusher entities, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for police protection. They claimed ownership of a property with a quarrying lease and asserted that a road passing through it is a public road, which they should be permitted to use. Respondent No. 5 also claimed a quarrying lease in the same land and contended that the road is on private land, with Hissa and Podi having taken place long ago. The petitioners had submitted a representation dated 04.02.2025 to the authorities, alleging that Respondent No. 5 was blocking the public road.
Held
The Court directed the police authorities (Respondents No. 3 and 4) to provide police protection to the petitioners. This protection is to be granted if Respondent No. 5 is indeed blocking a public road and preventing the petitioners from using it, and if there is a threat to the petitioners' possession, life, or limb. The Court emphasized that the police protection must be strictly in consonance with the circular dated 04.11.2018. Crucially, the Court clarified that the police are not to enter into the boundary dispute between the petitioners and Respondent No. 5. The order is solely for the purpose of granting police protection and facilitating the usage of the road, contingent on it being a public road. The petition was disposed of with these observations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to police protection to transport material from the disputed road, as per their representation dated 04.02.2025? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the right to use a road and the need for police protection). Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the road in question is a public road and they should be permitted to use it for transporting materials. They sought police protection to facilitate this usage, based on their representation. Respondent No. 5's contention: Respondent No. 5 contended that the land through which the road passes is private property and that Hissa and Podi (partition of land) had occurred long ago, implying it is not a public road accessible to the petitioners. The revenue respondents (R1 to R4) were represented by the Additional Government Advocate, and their specific arguments were not detailed in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to provide police protection in terms of the representation dated 04.02.2025. The petitioners claim to be the owners of particular land measuring 2acres and 20guntas and has obtained a quarrying lease in the said property. Respondent No.5 also claimed to have obtained quarrying lease in the land. The NC: 2025:KHC:14963 dispute is with regard to the road that passes through both the lands.
Heard Shri Ganapathy Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and Shri Chandrashekar C., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is a public road and he should be permitted to use.
The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that it is a private land, Hissa and Podi to the land has taken place long ago.
Be that as it may. The representation is given by the petitioners on the premise that respondent No.5 is blocking a public road. Therefore, the police, if respondent No.5 is blocking the public road and not permitting use of the land by the petitioners, shall accord such police protection, if there is NC: 2025:KHC:14963 threat to the possession, life or limb of the petitioners, strictly in consonance with circular dated 04.11.2018. 6. It is made clear that the police would not enter into the boundary disputed between the petitioners and respondent No.
The order is rendered only for the purpose of grant of police protection and usage of the road, if it is a public road.
With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT: BHK
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.