Sri. Ramdas Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. Ramdas Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn pursuant to the out-of-court settlement recorded in the petitioner's memo dated 17.3.2025; no relief granted on the merits of the challenge to Annexures-L and M.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders passed by respondent No.2 (Assistant Commissioner) at Annexure-L (No. KSC/ST(S)/09/97-98, dated 02.02.2009) and Annexure-M (No. KSC.ST.(S) 7/97-98, dated 22.04.2000) were liable to be quashed and/or were not binding on the petitioner. (Raised but not adjudicated; petition withdrawn.)

Ratio / Principle

Accepting the memo dated 17.3.2025 and the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn; no issue on the merits of the challenge to Annexures-L and M was decided.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. No. 22613 of 2022 (SCST), High Court of Karnataka (Suraj Govindaraj, J.), decided 24.03.2025 - Withdrawal on out-of-court settlement. The petitioner, Ramdas (through GPA holder), under Article 226 sought certiorari to quash Annexure-L (No. KSC/ST(S)/09/97-98 dated 02.02.2009) and Annexure-M (No. KSC.ST.(S) 7/97-98 dated 22.04.2000), orders of the Assistant Commissioner (R2), a declaration that they were not binding on him, and quashing of all actions taken pursuant thereto. By memo dated 17.3.2025 he recorded that pursuant to those orders the lands in Sy.Nos.168 and 169 were restored to the legal representatives of the original grantees, who obtained Government sale permissions (PTCL (DST) 11/2005-06 re Sy No.168; order dated 17.10.2012 in PTCL (S) CR 2/2012-13 re Sy No.169) and sold the lands to Mr. Prakashnath @ Shekarappa (sale deeds dated 26.10.2016, Doc No.3067/2010-11 and 04.01.2013, Doc No.10026/2012-13); that the purchaser obtained BDA layout approval, formed a residential layout, relinquished common areas to the BDA and created third-party rights; and that the dispute stood settled out of court for Rs. 1,56,00,000/- paid by account payee cheques Nos. 058207 and 058180 both dated 10.03.2025 (Axis Bank, Uttarahalli Branch). Accepting the memo and counsel's submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn; no question on the merits was adjudicated, and the memo had sought withdrawal without liberty to approach again.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Two orders of respondent No.2 (Assistant Commissioner) challenged by writ of certiorari: Annexure-L bearing No. KSC/ST(S)/09/97-98 dated 02.02.2009 and Annexure-M bearing No. KSC.ST.(S) 7/97-98 dated 22.04.2000, together with all actions taken in pursuance thereof; the petitioner also sought a declaration that the orders were not binding on him.¶39
Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division (Respondent No.2)
Prior proceeding
In view of the impugned orders, the Assistant Commissioner restored the lands to the legal representatives (LR's) of the original grantees.¶49
Prior proceeding
The legal representatives obtained Government sale permission in PTCL (DST) 11/2005-06 in respect of Sy No.168, and by order dated 17.10.2012 in No. PTCL (S) CR 2/2012-13 in respect of Sy No.169.¶49
Prior proceeding
Thereafter the legal representatives sold the land to Mr. Prakashnath @ Shekarappa under registered absolute sale deed dated 26.10.2016 (document No.3067/2010-11) and registered absolute sale deed dated 04.01.2013 (document No.10026/2012-13).¶49
Prior proceeding
Mr. Prakashnath @ Shekarappa obtained a layout plan from the BDA and formed a residential layout in the said survey numbers along with other larger extents of land.¶50
Prior proceeding
Common areas, road and parks in Sy.No.168 and 169 were relinquished to the BDA; third-party rights were created over the property and possession came to be with third parties.¶50
Prior proceeding
The petitioner submitted that the matter had thereby become a civil dispute which could not be gone into by the writ court.¶50
Prior proceeding
At the intervention of common well-wishers and real estate agents, the dispute was settled out of court between the petitioner and the subsequent purchaser Mr. Prakashnath @ Shekarappa; a settlement amount of Rs.1,56,00,000/- was paid by two account payee cheques dated 10.03.2025.¶53
Prior proceeding
A memo dated 17.3.2025 for withdrawal of the writ petition was filed and signed by the petitioner and his counsel, stating that the writ petition did not survive for consideration and praying that it be dismissed as withdrawn as settled out of court.¶44
Prior proceeding
By the prayer in the memo, the petitioner sought dismissal as settled out of court without any liberty to approach the Court again.¶60