This writ petition challenged the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal order seeking eviction. The Court rejected the petition, holding that no error was apparent on the face of the record, and thus writ jurisdiction was not invoked.
The writ petition is rejected; no quashment of the impugned order.
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 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.6521 OF 2022(LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT.GANGAMMA, D/O A K GANGAMMA, W/O HANUMANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF UJJINI VILLAGE, SASLU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 204.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VINAYA KEERTHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRABHU PUJAR S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.3075, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, BASAVARAJAPPA QUARTERS, DODDABALLAPURA – 561 203.
(NOTE: RESPONDENT NO.4 & 5 MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-D ARE NOT MADE PARTY, SINCE THE PETITIONER NOT CLAIMING ANY RELIEF AGAINST THEM)
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRODUCED IN ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 IN REV APPEAL NO.163/2007 ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking quashment of order dated 28.03.2013 made in (REV) Appeal No.163/2007 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Annexure D) whereby, pursuant to the impugned order, the Authorities seek to evict the Petitioner from the subject land.
3
occupation of the subject land for more than fifty years as is reflect by the RTC and hissa book entries. L
and having perused the petition papers, this Writ Petition is liable to rejected and accordingly it is broadly in agreement with the submission of learned AGA. No justifiable reasons having been pointed out for invocation of writ jurisdiction, a Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 cannot undertake a deeper examination of the matter unless there is a demonstrable error apparent
4
on the face of the record vide SADHANA LODH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., (2003) 3 SCC 524. This having not happened, no circumstances are shown to deviate from the well trodden path.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is
rejected. Costs having been easy.
Sd/JUDGE
Bsv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is invoked without a demonstrable error apparent on the face of the record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.Referred¶29
SADHANA LODH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., (2003) 3 SCC 524 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
GANGAMMA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TAHSILDAR
MAHADANANDA GUPTA P.G
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
