Supreme Court jurisdiction waiting. This short order dismisses a writ petition challenging a possession notice. The court held petitioners lacked locus standi as their inducteeship was illegal due to a prior violation of an undertaking to surrender the farm house resulting from resumed land acquisition orders.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 56415 OF 2017 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
WP No. 56415 of 2017
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1-R3; SRI.G.M.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R4 SERVED, R6 SERVED)
WP No. 56415 of 2017
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 2.12.2017 ISSUED BY R-3 AT ANENX-A AND DIRECT THE R-3 TO HOLD ENQUIRY AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE TO THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the
possession notice issued by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner.
and they have come up with a contention that they were inducted by the second purchaser i.e., the petitioner in W.P.No.55607/2017. In the light of my findings and conclusions recorded by this Court in connected writ petition in W.P.No.31895/2018 and W.P.No.55607/2017,
the present petitioners have no locus to resist and object for handing over of the farm house situated in the petition land.
WP No. 56415 of 2017
and the same is confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.1385/1990. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.No.31895/2018 in gross violation of undertaking
given before this Court that he would voluntarily handover possession has highhandedly and illegally in contravention of undertaking sold the petition land to the petitioner in W.P.No.55607/2017. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.No.55607/2017 had no authority to induct the present petitioners.
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
The pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
CA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, claiming to be inducted tenants, have locus to resist the possession notice in violation of a previous court undertaking.
Sri Karunakar Shetty and Ors.
The State of Karnataka and Ors.
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
