Partly allowed

Sri K Raju S/O Late Kullegowda v. Chaluvaiah S/O Kovi Hanumegowda

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2014WP/1765/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order disposed of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by an allottee seeking to quash an order entertaining a request for additional documents. The Court allowed the documents to be produced, leaving it to the lower court to decide their relevance during disposal.

What did the court decide?

Application to entertain additional documents allowed; Writ Petition disposed of accordingly.

Sri K Raju S/O Late Kullegowda Vs Chaluvaiah S/O Kovi… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2014

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶5

Writ Petition 1765 / 2012 (GM CPC)

¶6

Between

¶7

Sri K Raju, 51 yrs S/o late Kullegowda R/o Thalagavadi Village Kirugavalu Hobli, Malavalli Tq Mandya District

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Nityanand V Nayak, Adv.)

¶10

And

¶11

Chaluvaiah S/o Kovi Hanumegowda R/o Thalagavadi Village Kirugavalu Hobli, Malavalli Tq Mandya District Respondent

¶12

(By Sri M R Rajagopal, Adv.)

¶13

Writ Petition is filed under Art.226 & 227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order dated 17.11.2011 in RA 36/2010 on IA 1 by the Sr.Civil Judge & JMFC, Malavalli.

¶14

Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court against the entertaining of

¶18

the IA filed by the respondent for production of additional documents, by

¶19

the lower appellate court and praying to reject those documents.

¶20

Heard the counsel representing the parties.

¶21

As it transpires, land was acquired by the Government for extension

¶22

of village in certain survey number. Petitioner is an allottee of site No.99 and site No.100 is allotted in favour of respondent. 16 guntas of land was sought to be denotified in favour of the erstwhile owner. So far as pathway is concerned, there is said to be obstruction as per the petitioner's counsel. However, the same has been disputed by the other side. As regards production of documents is concerned, there is a notification issued notifying the fact of releasing 16 guntas of land in the same survey number in favour of the owner. The respondent intends to bring this to the notice of the court. The original lis is in respect of obstruction of pathway.

¶23

¶24

According to the respondent's counsel, there is no such obstruction being created. Certain additional documents are sought to be produced only to clarify the position and the right accumulated in favour of the owner in the suit filed by the petitioner which was decreed against which in the appeal filed by the respondent, he sought to produce the documents.

¶25

The documents sought to be produced is to clarify the position that 16 guntas of land is denotified in favour of respondent owner and as such, relevant portion if any, is supporting one and accordingly, he wants to establish the same. The production of additional documents may throw light on the lis to be decided by the lower appellate court, which may be necessary. Or else the lower appellate court can either consider it or may find it not relevant to the case on hand. However, for the time being, if the order is passed entertaining the additional documents to be produced, it would be the discretion of the lower appellate court to consider or not for which there shall not be any obstruction by the petitioner herein. If the respondent makes out a case to convince the court, it is for the court at its discretion to consider and pass appropriate orders or else reject the very

¶26

documents at the time of disposal of the case. Ordered accordingly.

¶27

Petition is disposed of.

¶28

SD/-

¶29

Judge

¶30

Sri K Raju S/O Late Kullegowda v. Chaluvaiah S/O Kovi Hanumegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Raju S/O Late Kullegowda v. Chaluvaiah S/O Kovi Hanumegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chikkanna Vs M/S Balaji Painters & Decorators

Sulaiman, Vs Sachidananda Shetty

Sulaiman, Vs Sachidananda Shetty

Rahamathualla Vs Afsar Pasha

Sri Tripura Bhairavi Mutt Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H M Srinath Vs Sri Muninagappa