The High Court of Karnataka held that a writ petition challenging an eviction order became infructuous because the petitioner had vacated the encroached portion and relocated to another place.
Nil, as the petition was dismissed as infructuous.
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 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.51768 OF 2015 (LB - RES)
BETWEEN:
SREE SHANKARMUTT AGRAHARA, SAGAR TOWN, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DHARMADHIKARI, SRI.S.R.THIMAPPA, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, SRINGERI SHANKARMUTT, SAGAR BRANCH, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577401 …PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.C.SHANTAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
SAGAR SUB-DIVISION, SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577401. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)(PH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS TO CONCERNING AND CONNECTED WITH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS DATED 06.11.2015 FROM THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND DECLARE AND QUASH THE SAME IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS THE PETITIONER ONLY, AS ARBITRARY DEVOID OF JURISDICTION AND AS VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 06.11.2015 held by the respondent No.1 to evict the petitioner from Ganapathi Lake in Sagar.
3
which ultimately culminated in an order passed by the respondent No.1 directing the petitioner to vacate the encroached portion on their own, which is impugned herein.
Sd/JUDGE
NR/-
Sree Shankarmutt Agrahara
Assistant Commissioner, Sagar Sub-Division
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
