Dismissed

Sri a N Krishna Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2016WP/8981/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected three writ petitions which sought to set aside an earlier order directing respondents to consider petitioners' land regularization claim and not disturb their possession, despite petitioners alleging suppression of a forest land eviction order.

What did the court decide?

Petitions rejected; Government Advocate permitted to file memo within two weeks regarding suppression of facts.

Sri a N Krishna Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF MARCH 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.8981-8983 OF 2016 (KLR-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. A.N.Krishna Murthy, Son of Late A. Narasimha Bhat, Aged 50 years,

¶9

Sri. A.V.Manjunath, Son of Late A.S.Venkatesh Bhat, Age 56 years,

¶10

Sri. A.S.Sujatha, Wife of Late Shivashankar Bhat, Aged 50 years,

¶11

Petitioners 1 to 3 are Residing at Anegunda, Sringeri Post, Chikamagaluru 577 139.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(By Shri Jagadish Hiremath, Advocate)

¶14

¶15

AND:

¶16

The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Conservator Of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Malleswaram, Bangalore 560 003.

¶17

The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Koppa Division, Koppa 577 126, Chikamagaluru District.

¶18

The Regional Conservator of Forest, Sringeri Region, Sringeri, Chikamagaluru 577 139.

¶19

The Deputy Commissioner, Chikamagaluru District 577 101.

¶20

The Tahsildar, Sringeri, Chikamagaluru 577 139.

¶21

The President, Adegaddi Panchayat, Sringeri Taluk, Chikamagaluru 577 139.

¶22

Smt. Devika S.D @ Devi, Wife of Manjunatha, Aged 26 years,

¶23

Smt. Devika, Aged 32 years, Wife of Arunakumar.

¶24

¶25

Smt. Prema .P, Wife of Sri. Subramanya, Aged 28 years,

¶26

Respondent Nos.7 to 9 are Residing at Anegunda, Bellandur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sringeri Taluk, Chikamagaluru 577 139.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(By Shri Venkatesh Dodderi, Additional Government for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 )

¶29

¶30

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.47494 to 47496/2015 dated 12.1.2016 by re-hearing W.P.Nos.47494 to 49496/2015 by affording the opportunity to the petitioners as per Annexure-K and to direct the fifth respondent to implement the order of eviction as per Annexure-D dated 11.9.2015.

¶31

These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The present petitions are filed seeking that the order

¶34

passed by this court dated 12.1.2016 be set aside. This is unusual. Though the petitioners claim that the petitions are in

¶35

¶36

the nature of review petitions, claiming that the petitioners in the earlier writ petitions in WP 47494-96/2015, had suffered an order of eviction passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and in gross suppression of the same had filed the aforesaid petitions, claiming that they are in occupation of the government land and that they had filed applications before the respondent seeking regularization of such occupation of land, which were said to be pending consideration, this court had allowed the aforesaid petitions directing the respondents to consider their claim in accordance with law and that their possession shall not be disturbed till such time their application is considered.

¶37

The petitioner claims that the land in question is a forest land and in view of gross suppression of the eviction order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by the respondents in the earlier petitions, where they were petitioners, the said order ought to be recalled and the present petitions be allowed setting aside the earlier order.

¶38

¶39

If this be the state of affairs, the authorities

¶40

concerned would take note of the eviction order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and pass appropriate orders. In the meanwhile, the possession not being disturbed is in order.

¶41

There is no warrant for the petitions to be entertained. Accordingly, the petitions are rejected.

¶42

The Government Advocate is permitted to file her memo

¶43

of appearance within two weeks and to communicate the circumstance that there was suppression of fact that the respondents herein had suppressed the order of eviction passed against them, which shall be taken into account in dealing with their representation.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sri a N Krishna Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a N Krishna Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Upendranath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. a. Shankaranarayana Udupa Vs the State of Karnataka

Puravankara Projects Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Kampaiah Vs Sarvar Khan

Sri C Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Armstrong World Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka