The High Court of Karnataka declines to grant an injunction in a writ petition seeking to restrain dispossession of land, holding that an adequate alternative remedy exists through a civil suit.
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, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.1771 OF 2019(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.SANNATHIPPAIAH, S/O LATE DODDA DURGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O SULTHANIPURA VILLAGE, TURAVANUR HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.FAYAZ SAB B G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
(BY SRI.V SESHU, HCGP)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REFRAIN FROM DISPOSSESSING THE PETITIONER FROM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner, by his prayer is seeking an injunctive relief at the hands of the Writ Court; to which, learned HCGP rightly opposes pointing out to the availability of alternate remedy through the properly constituted Civil suit. This Court agrees with the submission of learned HCGP and therefore, declines indulgence in the matter.
In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed
off.
Sd/JUDGE
Bsv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner.
Sri. Sannathippaiah
State of Karnataka
Krishna S. Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
