- (1.)THE petitioners are before this Court assailing the communication/direction issued by the 1st respondent to the 6th respondent dated 19.05.2012 impugned at Annexure-L to the petition. The petitioners have also sought for issue of direction to the respondents No.2 to 6 to provide necessary protection to the property belonging to the petitioners in Sy. No. 241, SAS Khatha No.115, Keelukote Village of Kolar Kasaba, to protect the lives of students and staffs of petitioners' school.
(2.)THE brief facts as putforth by the learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners is that the petitioners' institution is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No, 241, SAS Khatha No. 115, Keelukote Village, Kolar City. The contention of the petitioners is that in the entire area comprises of one compact block. In one portion, the construction has been put up and the educational institutions are being run by the petitioners. On the other portion, which is open, the petitioners are seeking to put up further construction and extend their educational activities. When that was the position, certain miscreants of the area without basis contended that a road passes through the said property, though the same is not indicated in any official records. Since, there was repeated interference at that stage, the petitioners' society was seeking protection by approaching the police authorities but to no avail. In that context, the petitioner is also stated to have approached this Court in W.P. No. 10225/2012 seeking for necessary direction in that regard. The said W.P. No. 10225/2012 was disposed of on 12.04.2012 as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities for appropriate relief. It is in that context, the case putforth by the learned Senior counsel is that despite request by the petitioners, the respondents No. 2, 4, 5 and 6 have not provided protection. On the other hand at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the enjoyment by the petitioners are being hampered inasmuch as the 3rd respondent is seeking to support the miscreants of the area. The petitioners are therefore making out a grievance with regard to the communication dated 19.05.2012 which according to the petitioners has given rise to the said situation.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would contend that by the communication dated 19.05.2012 there is absolutely no infringement of right of the petitioners. The 1st respondent has only stated the factual aspect from the records and left it to the concerned authorities to consider in accordance with law and therefore no grievance could be made out by the petitioners in that regard. The learned Government advocate on the other hand would submit that the entire case would indicate that there are certain civil dispute relating to the ownership of the property and in that regard certain persons have instituted a suit in O.S. No. 497/2012 against the petitioners and in such circumstance, the parties would have to agitate their rights in the said suit and the police authorities in any event cannot adjudicate upon the property rights of the parties and therefore any direction to the police authorities at this juncture would not arise.

(3.)IN the light of the above, from the sequence of the events as narrated by the learned Senior counsel, it would indicate that the petitioners have relied upon the documents to indicate that the petitioners own the property in question. However, adjudication of the right to the property in any event cannot be made in a writ proceedings. In that light, even if the communication dated 19.05.2012 against which a grievance is made out by the petitioner is perused, the said document itself would indicate that from the records of the Municipality, the extent of the property owned by the petitioners is indicated. Though the learned Senior counsel points out that the last Paragraph to that letter has given rise to present situation, in my opinion, a proper understanding of the content would show that the 1st respondent in fact has taken a neutral stand by stating the factual aspect and leaving to any of the concerned parties disputing the right of either to have the matter adjudicated in an appropriate forum and in fact the 1st respondent has clearly indicated that they would not be in a position to alter the records in the absence of any Court direction. Therefore, in my opinion, the 1st respondent have taken a correct stand in the matter and the petitioners cannot have any grievance with regard to the said communication.