B T Bhagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 42461 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B.T. BHAGYAMMA, WIFE OF THARANATH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT #KHB MUNICIPAL QUARTERS NO.8, 21^ST WARD, THYAGARAJANAGARA, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, KARNATAKA-562110.

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

CHIKKALAKSHMAIAH SON OF ANDYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT KHB MUNICIPAL QUARTERS NO.3 21^ST WARD, THYAGARAJANAGAR, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, KARNATAKA-562110. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶11

2(a) MUNIKRISHNA SON OF (LATE) CHIKKALAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT # KHB MUNICIPAL QUARTERS NO.3, 21^ST WARD, THYAGARAJANAGARA, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110 KARNATAKA.

¶12

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 16.09.2022

¶13

YOUSUF SHARIFF SON OF BABA SAB,

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT KHB MUNICIPAL QUARTERS NO.9, 21^ST WARD, THYAGARAJANAGAR, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, KARNATAKA-562110.

¶17

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶18

3.(a) NOUSHAD SHARIF SON OF (LATE) YOUSUF SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT # KHB MUNICIPAL QUARTERS NO.3, 21^ST WARD, THYAGARAJANAGARA, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110, KARNATAKA. AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 16.09.2022

¶19

SHAIK MAULA SON OF LATE T.S. SAFEER AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT #KHB MUNICIPAL QUARTERS, 21^ST WARD, THYAGARAJANAGARA, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, KARNATAKA -562110.

¶20

V. HANUMANTHAPPA SON OF SRI POLICE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT #KHB MUNICIPAL QUARTERS NO.6, 21^ST WARD, THYAGARAJANAGARA, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, KARNATAKA -562110. 6. TANVEER PASHA, SON OF LATE YASEEM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT # KHB MUNICIPAL QUARTERS NO.5, 21^ST WARD, THYAGARAJANAGARA, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, KARNATAKA -562110.

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SMT. FARAJAN BEGAM ALIAS NAIN TAJ WIFE OF LATE D.S. SYED BASHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT # KHB MUNICIPAL QUARTERS NO.7, 21^ST WARD, THYAGARAJANAGARA, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, KARNATAKA -562110.

¶24

K ANJANAPPA SON OF LATE KURLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT #KHB MUNICIPAL QUARTERS NO.4 21^ST WARD, THYAGARAJANAGARA, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, KARNATAKA -562110.

¶25

KHAMMAR JAN BEGUM WIFE OF LATE SALAM SAB AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT KHB MUNICIPAL QUARTERS NO.10, 21^ST WARD, THYAGARAJANAGAR, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, KARNATAKA -562110. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶26

9(a) MOHAMED KHAMARUDDIN SON OF (LATE) SALMA SAB AND KHAMMAR JAN BEGUM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.76 A, TYAGARAJA NAGAR, DEVANAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562110 KARNATAKA. AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 19.03.2024

¶27

9(b) GAYAZ PASHA SON OF ABDUL GAFAR SAB, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

RESIDING AT KORACHARA STREET, BEHIND TIPPU MASID, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110. AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 19.03.2024

¶32

1DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 18.11.2025

¶33

DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.02.2026

¶34

MD. MAKTIYAR SON OF ABDUL GAFFAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT # KHB MUNICIPAL QUARTERS NO.1 21^ST WARD, THAYAGARAJANAGARA, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, KARNATAKA-562110

¶35

DEAD²

¶36

10(a) GAYAZ PASHA

¶37

SON OF ABDUL GAFFAR SAB AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A KORACHARA STREET, BEHIND TIPPU MASID, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.

¶38

AMENDMENT AS PER ORDER DATED 18.11.2025³ DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.02.2026

¶39

…PETITIONERS

¶40

(BY SRI. Y.T.ABHINAV, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,

¶43

1 No such order was passed on 18.11.2025. Same is clarified in the order of the Court dated 30.12.2025

¶44

2 It is stated in para No.7 of the application - I.A. No.1/2026 that the petitioner No.10 is alive and vide order of the Court dated 19.02.2026, his name is restored

¶45

3 No such order was passed on 18.11.2025. Same is clarified in the order of the Court dated 30.12.2025

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶49

THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD 1^ST , 3^RD AND 4^TH FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560009 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶50

THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DEVANAHALLI BANGALORE-HYDERABAD ROAD, NATIONAL HIGHWAY 7, DEVANAHALLI TOWN KARNATAKA-562110

¶51

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶52

SRI. YATHISH J. NADIGA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. NAGARAJ S. JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶53

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONVEY THE HOUSES IN THE OCCUPATION OF THE PETITIONERS IN AK COLONY, THYAGRAJNAGAR, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE DISTRICT AS ENVISAGED UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.

¶54

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS

¶55

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶60

ORAL ORDER

¶61

The petitioners have sought for a direction to the

¶62

respondents to convey the houses in their occupation in A.K. colony, Thyagarajanagar, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, and to restrain the respondents from dispossessing them from the house in their occupation.

¶63

The petitioners claim that the respondent No.2 constructed 932 houses in the year 1972 under the Subsidized Industrial Housing Scheme (‘SIH Scheme’ for short) for industrial workers and 892 houses under the Subsidized Rental Housing Scheme (‘SRH Scheme’ for short) for economically weaker sections throughout the State. In the District of Bengaluru, 471 houses were constructed under the SRH Scheme. The petitioners claim that these houses were constructed to provide housing at subsidized rents to persons belonging to the economically weaker sections either by the respondent No.2 - Karnataka Housing Board ('KHB' for short) or

¶64

by other instrumentalities of the State such as Public Works Department (PWD) or the local bodies. On 26.09.1972, the

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

respondent No.2 handed over 10 houses constructed under the

¶68

SRH Scheme to the Town Municipal Council (for short, ‘TMC’), Devanahalli, for allotting the same by way of lease on subsidized rent to members belonging to the economically weaker sections of Devanahalli. The petitioners claim that they all either belong to the scheduled castes or are persons belonging to the minority community. After the houses were handed over to the TMC in the year 1972, the TMC allotted 10 houses constructed under the SRH Scheme to the petitioners on subsidized rent. The petitioners claim that though the rent was to be subsidized, the rents collected by the TMC were on a higher side and petitioners at times defaulted in payment of the rent. Taking note of this predicament, the Central Government by an order dated 09.02.1978, changed its policy regarding the renting out of houses constructed for industrial workers and persons belonging to the economically weaker sections and it decided to permit the State Governments to transfer the houses built under the SIH Scheme for industrial workers and persons belonging to the economically weaker sections and who were in occupation of the houses by granting 20% rebate of the original cost subject to clearing all the arrears of rent.

¶69

8 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Pursuant thereto, the State Government by an order dated 21/24.09.1979, granted permission to the KHB to dispose off 932 houses constructed under the SIH Scheme and 892 houses constructed under the SRH Scheme throughout the State by fixing the sale price after granting 20% rebate of the original cost to the occupants of the houses. A total of 471 houses constructed under the SRH Scheme in Bengaluru District were also ordered to be disposed off in the above manner. By order dated 18.09.1980, the State Government clarified that the income of the allottees was inconsequential for the implementation of the policy to dispose off the houses under the SRH Scheme to the occupants. Following this decision, the State Government during the period from 1980 to 2009, passed a series of orders directing the KHB to convey hundreds of houses constructed under the SRH Scheme to the occupants in various towns such as Bengaluru, Nanjanagud, Kanakapura, Maddur, Davanagere, Nagamangala, Dharwad, Sirsi, Channapatna, Kanakapura, Magadi, Koppal etc. Despite the above Government orders, in 2004, the respondent No.2 instituted five suits for recovery of arrears of rent against some of the petitioners before the City Civil Court in Devanahalli.

¶73

9 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

The petitioners submitted a representation dated 22.12.2006 to the Commissioner of the respondent No.2 to convey the houses constructed under the SRH Scheme as per the various Government Orders referred above. Following the said representation dated 22.12.2006, the petitioners submitted another representation dated 03.03.2007 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister with a request to direct the respondent No.2 to convey the sites to the petitioners. The office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister by a communication dated 10.03.2007, directed the Commissioner of the respondent No.2 to consider the request of the petitioners. In the meanwhile, on 24.04.2009, the suit filed by the respondent No.2 for recovery of arrears of rent was decreed against some of the petitioners who were directed by the Trial Court to pay the arrears of rent with interest at 6% per annum. The affected petitioners filed the appeals against the said judgment which were allowed in part by the Appellate Court in terms of the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010.

¶77

It is contended that the ten houses constructed

¶78

under the SRH Scheme handed over to the respondent No.3 were in fact not conveyed to it by the respondent No.2 and the title of the houses always remained with the respondent No.2.

¶79

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

This defence was raised by the petitioners in the suits mentioned above and this purportedly prompted the respondent No.3 to clear the arrears and request for conveyance of the houses. It is claimed that the request of the respondent No.3 was not considered and that the petitioners continued to reside in the houses. In respect of the houses constructed under the SRH Scheme in Koppal which were handed over to the PWD, the latter had issued notices to the occupants to hand over possession of the same to them. These notices were challenged before this Court in W.P Nos.77630634/2013 and 77713-728/2013. This Court in terms of the order dated 24.04.2013, quashed the notices issued by the PWD to the occupants of houses under the SRH Scheme and directed the KHB to consider their cases for allotment. During June-July 2013, the respondent No.2 purportedly conveyed twenty houses pursuant to the order dated 24.04.2013 passed in W.P. Nos.77630-634/2013 and 77713-728/2013. The petitioners contend that though these houses constructed under the SRH Scheme all over the State were conveyed to the occupants, in the month of January 2017, the respondent No.3 issued notices under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 calling upon the petitioners

¶86

to vacate and hand over the possession of the houses. The petitioners are, therefore, before this Court seeking for the directions as stated above.

¶87

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions and submitted that when the Central Government as well as the State Government had taken a policy decision to allot houses in occupation of people belonging to the economically weaker sections and industrial workers, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are also bound to fall in line to convey the houses which are rented out to the petitioners. He contends that the respondent No.3 is not the owner of the houses but it is the respondent No.2 which has constructed the houses and therefore, the respondent No.2 is bound to convey the houses by allotting it to the petitioners.

¶88

The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.2 which has filed a statement of objections inter alia contending that the State Government had authorized the erstwhile Mysuru Housing Board to construct houses in different parts of Karnataka under the SIH Scheme and SRH Scheme. The

¶89

12 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

houses constructed under the said Scheme were to be handed over to the concerned local bodies enabling them to allot the same to the backward and low income group people. The respondent No.2 handed over ten houses constructed under the SRH Scheme at Devanahalli to the Chief Officer, Taluk Municipality, Devanahalli, on lease-cum-sale basis by fixing a provisional price of the houses at Rs.42,000/- less subsidy admissible at Rs.21,000/- and the balance had to be paid in 29 annual installments of Rs.1,796/- with simple interest of 7.5% and penal interest of 11.5% on overdue installments. The respondent No.2 claims that as per the directions of the State Government, it had sent the draft lease-cum-sale deed to the respondent No.3 to make necessary entries in the office of the Sub-Registrar. After entering into the lease-cum-sale agreement, possession of ten houses constructed under SRH Scheme with separate memos were given to the respondent No.3 on 26.09.1972. The respondent No.3 failed to pay the annual installments in respect of ten houses constructed under the SRH Scheme regularly and had kept the dues for a long period. The respondent No.2 claimed that the respondent No.3 failed to clear the arrears of a sum of Rs.1,18,074/- as on

¶93

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

02.08.2005 within the stipulated period and hence, for violation

¶96

of the conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice dated 02.08.2005 under Section 45(1) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962. The respondent No.3 explained its financial difficulties vide its letter dated 22.08.2005 and paid Rs.50,000/- through cheque. Later, the respondent No.2 issued one more show cause notice dated 07/14.10.2005 under Section 45(1) of the KHB Act, 1962 demanding the balance sum of Rs.82,596/-. Respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 19.10.2005 and paid a sum of Rs.82,596/- by a cheque. The respondent No.3 then requested the respondent No.2 to forward the sale deeds in respect of ten houses constructed under the SRH Scheme at Devanahalli. The respondent No.3 thereafter addressed a letter dated 15.11.2005 to the respondent No.2 requesting it to acknowledge the receipt of the amount as demanded and also to forward the sale deed in favour of respondent No.3. The respondent No.2 executed a lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of the respondent No.3 and therefore, it contends that it

¶97

is the duty of the respondent No.2 to execute a sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 as full consideration amount was

¶98

14 -

¶99

NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

paid by the respondent No.3. The respondent No.2 also undertook that it would execute necessary sale deed in favour of the respondent No.3. It claimed that it was not aware as to whom the respondent No.3 has allotted the houses.

¶102

The petition is also opposed by the respondent No.3 which has filed an elaborate statement of objections inter alia contending that the Government orders referred by the petitioners in the writ petition are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as the houses that were constructed by the respondent No.2 were not under the Schemes referred above. It contended that the property where the houses were constructed belonged to the respondent No.3

¶103

and the entire cost of construction was borne by the respondent No.3 and the name of the respondent No.3 was entered in the property register. Therefore, it claimed that the houses in question are the property of respondent No.3 and no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. It also contended that most of the petitioners are not residing in

¶104

the subject quarters. It claimed that the petitioner No.1 is residing at Prashanthanagara, Devanahalli Town and not residing at quarters No.8 while petitioner No.2 has expired and

¶105

15 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

his relative is residing in the Municipality quarters No.3. The petitioner No.3 is also not residing in quarters No.9, but his relative is residing therein. Petitioner No.5 is also not residing at quarters No.6 and being the ex-President of the respondent No.3, he possesses several immovable properties and has a residential building at Prashanthanagara, Ward No.22, Devanahalli. In so far as the petitioner No.7 is concerned, it is claimed that he is also not residing at quarters No.7 as he has vacated it several years ago. Similarly, petitioner No.8 is not residing at quarters No.4 but is residing at Bengaluru while petitioner No.9 is also not residing at quarters No.10 but some of her relatives is residing at quarters No.10. The petitioner No.10 is also not residing in quarters No.10 but his relative named Ziaulla (stated as Jiyavulla in para No.5(viii) of the statement of objections) is residing at quarters No.1. Therefore, it contended that petitioners are not residing at quarters and many of them who were residing therein were not tenants.

¶109

It then contended that the respondent No.3 on 30.09.1959, had invited tenders for construction of quarters for its staff. A bid submitted by one person Sri Kempanna was

¶110

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

rejected as it was high and the same was communicated to him by way of an endorsement dated 12.10.1959. Thereafter, an ordinary General Body meeting of the respondent No.3 was held on 15.03.1969 where it was decided to recover possession

¶113

of the houses constructed by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 delivered the possession of the houses to the respondent No.3 on 26.09.1972. Since the quarters were constructed by taking loan by the respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 was bound to pay installments, it sent several reminders to the respondent No.3 demanding the payment. The respondent No.3 made some payments and several communications ensued between the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.2 seeking time to make the balance payment. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 paid the balance payable to the respondent No.2 on 04.10.2005 and 21.10.2005. The averment made in paragraph No.6 of the petition that on 26.09.1972, the respondent No.2 handed over 10 houses constructed under the SRH Scheme to the respondent No.3 for allotting it to the members belonging to economically weaker sections of Devanahalli is denied as false. It contended that the houses constructed were not meant to be allotted under the

¶114

17 -

¶115

NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

SRH Scheme as alleged in the writ petition but it was given on rent as per the resolution passed by the respondent No.3 on 16.04.1997 (stated as 10.04.1997 in para No.11 of the statement of objections). It contended that it had filed suits for recovery of rents against the persons who were placed in possession of the houses which terminated in separate decrees directing the occupants to pay the arrears of rents although without interest. With these and other contentions, the respondent No.3 claimed that these houses were not constructed under the Schemes framed by the State Government and therefore, the petitioners have no right to compel the respondents to convey the properties to the petitioners.

¶118

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 reiterated the averments made in the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.2.

¶119

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 invited the attention of the Court to the documents produced along with the statement of objections to contend that the houses were constructed by the respondent No.2 at the request of

¶120

18 -

¶121

NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

respondent No.3 and the cost of such construction was borne by the respondent No.3.

¶124

Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 reiterated the submissions of the respective learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶125

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and the respective learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶126

The petitioners have laid a claim to the houses in their occupation by relying upon certain decisions taken by the State Government pursuant to a policy decision of the Central Government to provide houses for industrial workers and persons belonging to economically weaker sections. Though the petitioners claimed that ten houses in their occupation were also constructed under the SRH scheme, the petitioners have failed to produce any documents in that regard. The houses that were constructed by the respondent No.2 are at the request and cost of the respondent No.3. The documents produced by the respondent No.3 along with the writ petition

¶127

19 -

¶128

NC: 2025:KHC:47378 WP No. 42461 of 2017

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

stand testimony to the above fact. It may be that the State Government had proposed to construct 471 houses under the SRH Scheme in Bangalore but it had nothing to do with the houses in occupation of the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners cannot claim that they are entitled for the houses in their occupation to be conveyed to them. In that view of the matter, no directions can be issued to the respondents to convey the houses in occupation of the petitioners to them.

¶131

Hence, this Petition lacks merit and is dismissed. It is open for the respondent No.3 to recover possession of the ten houses in accordance with law.

¶132

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶133

SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

B T Bhagyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B T Bhagyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Srikanth Chowdary Marri @ Srikanth Vs the Chief Commissioner

Girish Kumar T M Vs Deputy Commissioner

Smt Muniyamma Since Deceased by Her Lrs Vs Sri Muninarasimhaiah

Mr. Balakrishna B L., Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

Surendra K Alias Sachin Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Sudarshan Shastry Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike