Petitioner challenged an order of the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Puttur under Article 226. Having failed in eviction proceedings up to a Regular Second Appeal with an undertaking to hand over possession by 31.07.2024, he had no subsisting right to challenge; writ petition dismissed.
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 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 36184 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
K. YOGESH PRABHU S/O. LATE K. VASUDEVA PRABHU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NEAR ULLAS BAR AND RESTAURANT UPPINANGADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DITRICT-574 241.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:22740 WP No. 36184 of 2016
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHARONJIT SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2: SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M .,ADVOCATE FOR R3: SMT. CHANDINI.S., HCGP FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:9.6.2016 PASSED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH PUTTUR, D.K. DISTRICT MANGALORE DATED:9.6.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
respondent No.3 for eviction has been decreed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed R.A.No.10/2021 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. The said RA came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed RSA No.642/2023 before this Court. The said appeal has been disposed of on 01.12.2023 with a direction to the petitioner to file an undertaking that he would hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises on or before 31.07.2024. To that effect, the petitioner also filed an undertaking.
HA
Sd/JUDGE
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner could challenge the Executive Officer's order dated 09.06.2016 when his appeal against eviction had been dismissed and he had undertaken to vacate the premises.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Yogesh Prabhu
The Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath Puttur
The Panchayath Development Officer Uppinangady Village Panchayath
The Administrative Officer Sri. Lakshmi Venkataramana Temple Uppinangady
State of Karnataka Department of PWD
H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
