Dismissed

Sri Mohammed Ayaz Pasha v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2023WP/16605/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court heard a writ petition challenging a Special Court order convicting the petitioner and directing handover of possession. The judge observed that the petitioner had filed a criminal appeal against the conviction. Upon receipt of a withdrawal memo, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn. Office directed to return certified copies upon receipt of Xerox copies.

Sri Mohammed Ayaz Pasha Vs the Assistant… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 16605 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 16605 OF 2022 (KLGP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI MOHAMMED AYAZ PASHA S/O MOHAMMED MARDAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 4TH CROSS AMBEDKAR LAYOUT TELECOM EXTENSION VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRAKASH R B.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by D K AND: BHASKAR Location: THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HIGH COURT KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD OF BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KARNATAKA PROJECT OFFICE CAVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU-56009.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/06/2022, PASSED BY THE

¶15

¶16

WP No. 16605 of 2022

¶17

KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT AT BENGALURU, IN LGC(G) NO.361/2019 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A WHICH IS ORDERED TO HANDOVER THE POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THE COMPLAINANT WITHIN 60 DAYS FAILING WHICH THE COMPLAINANT IS AT LIBERTY TO TAKE POSSESSION OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY AT THE COST OF PETITIONER AFTER APPEAL PERIOD.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Learned counsel Sri Sunil H.R. for the petitioner is present before the court physically and represents Sri R.B.Prakash who is on record. Similarly, learned counsel Raghavendra A.Kulkarni for respondent is present before the Court.

¶21

In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Karnataka Land grabbing Prohibition Special Court at Bengaluru in LGC(G) No.361/2019 vide Annexure-A and for such other reliefs. In the operative portion of the order

¶22

¶23

WP No. 16605 of 2022

¶24

passed indicating that “acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4(3) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Further the accused was directed to handover the possession of the schedule property to the complainant within 60 days failing which, the complainant is at liberty to take possession of the schedule property at the cost of the accused after appeal period. The said complaint was initiated by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board, Bengaluru Urban District Project Office, Cauvery Bhavan, Bengaluru.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioner submits against the

¶26

second part of the order passed by the Special Court i.e., directing to hand over the possession of the schedule property to the complainant within 60 days failing which the complainant is at liberty to take possession of schedule property at the cost of the accused after appeal period the

¶27

¶28

WP No. 16605 of 2022

¶29

present writ petition is filed. But in respect of the first part of the order i.e., convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4(3) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 and sentencing to suffer SI for a period of one year and to pay fine amount is concerned, Crl.A.No.1307/2022 is preferred. Therefore, a prudent man can infer that two proceedings i.e., writ petition and criminal appeal are preferred by the accused against the order passed by the Special Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner and so also, counsel for the respondent to clarify the position in respect of any interim order has been granted in the aforesaid criminal appeal.

¶30

In the meanwhile of giving dictation, counsel for the petitioner Sri.Prakash R.B. files a memo seeking permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file fresh miscellaneous first appeal and to take back the certified copies of the impugned order and other documents.

¶31

¶32

WP No. 16605 of 2022

¶33

The memo is placed on record. Accordingly, the

¶34

petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶35

Office is directed to return the certified copies of the documents after obtaining the Xerox copies of the same, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

DKB

Sri Mohammed Ayaz Pasha v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohammed Ayaz Pasha v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Victor Veigas Vs Smt Rekha Prabhu

Sri Girish Bhat Vs Nil

Eshwara. M. v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Latha B R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H K Basavegowda Vs the State of Karnataka