The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking restoration of property as a water body. The court held the petition non-maintainable as the issue was finally decided in an earlier PIL where the respondent's husband obtained occupancy rights.
The writ petition was dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.15197 OF 2021 (GM-RES) PIL
BETWEEN:
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RADHANANDAN B.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE
THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS WATER BODY, FREE OF ALL ENCUMBRANCES, SINCE THE SAME IS VESTED WITH THE STATE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this public interest litigation, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:
has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition has been decided vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.12126/2008(LR-PIL) ( V.S.MURALI AND OTHERS
vs. N.SHIVANNA AND OTHERS) . The earlier public interest
litigation was filed against the husband of respondent No.4.
keep this matter pending. The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
AHB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given that the controversy was already decided in an earlier judgment.
Whether the petitioner is permitted to re-agitate an issue on the same cause of action after occupancy rights were finalized.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.S.Murali AND OTHERS vs N.SHIVANNA AND OTHERSReferred
Writ Petition No.12126/2008(LR-PIL) V.S.Murali AND OTHERS vs N.SHIVANNA AND OTHERS
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Venu V and others
State of Karnataka
Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Authority
Smt. Sunanda
Ritu Raj Awasthi
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
