Dismissed

N Vittal Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Oct 2023WP/58994/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed I.A.1/2023 to condone delay and set aside abatement, permitting legal representatives of the deceased petitioner to come on record. Subsequently, admitting the settlement between parties and a written memo for withdrawal, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Application I.A.1/2023 allowed; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.

N Vittal Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38007 WP No. 58994 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.58994 OF 2015 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

N VITTAL SHETTY SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶8

1a. SMT. NIRMALA W/O LATE VITTAL SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶9

1b. SMT. DIVYA D/O LATE VITTAL SHETTY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶10

1c. SMT. SHUBHA D/O LATE VITTAL SHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶11

1d. SRI. PUSHPARAJA S/O LATE VITTAL SHETTY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

1e. SMT. VANI D/O LATE VITTAL SHETTY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT 'NADAVE' HOUSE IDU VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38007 WP No. 58994 of 2015

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶20

THE LAND TRIBUNAL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KARKALA TALUK KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.

¶21

SMT. APPI SHEDTHI W/O LATE SUBBAIAH SHETTY AGE: MAJOR R/AT IDU VILALGE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.

¶22

PREMA SHEDTHI D/O LATE SUBBAIAH SHETTY AGE: MAJOR R/AT IDU VILALGE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.

¶23

SRI. MANMATHA SHETTY S/O LATE SUBBAIAH SHETTY AGE: MAJOR R/AT IDU VILALGE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.

¶24

SUMANAJI SHETTY D/O LATE SUBBAIAH SHETTY AGE: MAJOR R/AT IDU VILALGE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:38007 WP No. 58994 of 2015

¶27

SMT. SUNDARI SHEDTHI W/O LATE THANIYAPPA SHETTY AGE: MAJOR R/AT IDU VILALGE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R7; R2 SERVED)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2011 PASSED BY RESPONDENT 2 LAND TRIBUNAL AT ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

I.A.1/2023 is filed by the applicants to condone delay, set aside abatement and permit the applicants to come on record as the legal representatives of the petitioner who died on 24.01.2021.

¶34

Accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit

¶35

accompanying application, I.A.1/2023 is allowed, delay condoned, abatement set aside, and the applicants are

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:38007 WP No. 58994 of 2015

¶38

permitted to come on record as the legal representatives

¶39

of the deceased petitioner.

¶40

Learned counsel is permitted to amend the causetitle, forthwith.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the matter is settled between the parties and in this regard, they have filed a memo for withdrawal of the writ petition.

¶43

Accepting the memo dated 05.09.2023, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶44

sac

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

¶46

SD/JUDGE

N Vittal Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Vittal Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

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

K.N. Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.v.Shivaram Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G L Jeevan Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri K Veerabhadrachari Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Anjanappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Maharajakumari Kamakshi Devi, Vs the State of Karnataka