The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution as abated. The court held that the petition lapsed because the petitioner failed to take steps in respect of deceased respondents who were legal heirs of the grantee and contesting parties.
the writ petition is dismissed as abated
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.
WP No. 29210 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 29210 OF 2019 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. YARLAGADDA VENKATESHWARALU, S/O. LATE. Y. CHOWDARAMA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.67, 3RD CROSS, R.K. GARDENS, NEW B.E.L. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 094.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka
WP No. 29210 of 2019
WP No. 29210 of 2019
KANNAMANGALA POST, BANGALORE - 560 067.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. ADINARAYAN ADVOCATE FOR R9.)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.04.2019 IN APPEAL NO.LND.SC-ST APPEAL NO.93/2017-18 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, THE R-2 HEREIN, PRODUCED UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC,.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though efforts are made to secure instructions from his clients, petitioners have failed to furnish instructions to take steps in respect of deceased respondents No.4 and 6. Referring to the order dated 09.11.2022, he would bring to the
WP No. 29210 of 2019
notice of this court that the petition is already dismissed against respondents No.4 and 6. Respondents No.4 to 6 are the legal heirs of the grantee, and they are the contesting parties. It is on the instance of respondents No.4, 5 and 6, the order of restoration is passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, and the same is confirmed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners have failed to take steps against deceased respondents No.4 and 6. The entire petition is liable to be dismissed as abated as the petitioners have failed to take steps in respect of deceased respondents No.4 and 6. The petitioners are not entitled to proceed only against respondent No.5.
For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is dismissed as abated.
Sd/JUDGE
HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as it has abated due to the death of certain respondents without continuation of the proceedings against them.
SRI. YARLAGADDA VENKATESHWARALU
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
SRI. DODDAGUNDAPPA
SRI. NAGARAJA
SRI. MUNIYAPPA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
