Writ petition filed to quash impugned orders. Court disposed of petition by granting same relief as in a cognate matter, allowing online application and setting three months for compliance.
Petition disposed; same relief granted as in cognate W.P.; petitioner to make online application considering seniority. Time for compliance is three months.
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 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.21304 OF 2016(LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI.ESHWARAPPA G, S/O LATE GIRITHIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KANCHIKOPPA VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 522. SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
(BY SRI. V SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS H/S, V.C.O DATED 02/09/2021; R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.12.2003 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN R.A.NO.11/2002-2003 FILED UNDER SECTION 136(3) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT (AS PER ANNX-D) AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN R.A.NO.45/2001-02 DATED 27.3.2002 (AS PER ANNX-C) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The subject matter of this writ petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.21906/2022 between SRI RAMAIAH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS disposed off by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2022 granting some reprieve to the litigant therein. Wherein the operative portion of the said Judgment reads as under:
“ In view of the above, the petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the Petitioner to make an application online as observed above and if such an application is made, the same would be considered & disposed off within an outer limit of four months. All contentions are kept open.
No costs.
It is open to the answering Respondents to solicit any information/documents from the side of the Petitioner for due consideration of his Representation. However, in the guise of such solicitation, no delay shall be brooked.”
between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY,
4
disposed of on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat the like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant it has to be extended to a similarly situated litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances. Therefore, his client should be granted the same relief on the basis of the parity. There is force in this submission.
In view of the above, this petition is disposed off granting the same relief as has been granted in the cognate writ petition. Time for compliance is three months, subject to seniority of the application.
All contentions are kept open, costs having been made
easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to similar relief granted in a cognate writ petition without derogatory circumstances.
Whether the impugned orders under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act should be quashed in his favor.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sri Ramaiah vs The State of KarnatakaReferred¶23
W.P.No.21906/2022 between SRI RAMAIAH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
A.V.Vinoda & Another vs State of KarnatakaReferred¶27
W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY
SRI ESWARAPPA G
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, OFFICE OF NADAKACHERI
SMT GOWRAMMA
SRI SHEKARAPPA
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
