The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the State's intra-court appeal challenging a Single Judge's order. The Bench declined to take a different view from a coordinate bench that had previously affirmed the Single Judge's decision.
The writ appeal was declined and dismissed; pending applications were disposed of.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.1155/2014 (KLR)
BETWEEN:
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA )
AND:
2
3
R/O # 15/1, 4TH MAIN SOLLAPURADAMMA LAYOUT SUNKADAKATTE
BANGALORE - 560 091.
MYSORE - 570 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. SREDHAR, ADV FOR R-1 TO R-8; SRI HEMANTH P, ADV FOR SMT. GEETHADEVI M.P., ADV., SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADV., FOR R-10; R-11 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 5252-5259/2012 DATED 31/07/2013.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEAING THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This intra court appeal is filed by the State challenging the order dated 31.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.525259/2012.
4
"4. Subsequently, a certain extent of land in question has been allotted by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the 7 th respondent.
5
Challenging the allotment of land in favour of the 7 th respondent writ petitions came to be filed on the ground that in view of the repealing of the “Act” and on account of the pendency of the appeal on the date of repeal, the appellants are entitled for repossession of the land and that the land allotted to the 7 th respondent is required to be quashed.
5. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions in part holding that even though an order is passed by the competent authority, Sanamma was entitled to retain 1500 sq. mts and the same has not been earmarked and allotted to Sanamma and to that extent, the Deputy Commissioner has to consider the case of the petitioner. With regard to the remaining extent, the claim of the appellants came to be rejected."
the case , we are not inclined to take a different view in the present intra court appeal which has been filed by the State. Accordingly, we decline to entertain this appeal and the same is therefore dismissed.
disposed of.
KK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain the State's writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's order in lands affecting writ petitions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A.Nos.5762-69/2013Referred¶42
The State of Karnataka
Sri K. Nanadesh
Sri R. Prakash
Sri C. Bhagavan
Sri N. Narayana
Sri M. Kantharaju
Alok Aradhe
S.Vishwajith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
