Sri. K. T. Giriyanna Vs State of Karnataka

1(a) SMT. GAYATHRI DEVI W/O. B M VENU GOPAL, D/O. LATE K T GIRIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.116, 2^ND FLOOR, 4^TH CROSS 5^TH MAIN, PRAYAG MONTESSORI, PADMANABHA NAGAR,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BENGALURU – 560 070.

¶20

1(b) MR. K G NAGARAJ S/O LATE MR. K.T.GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.218, 23^RD MAIN ROAD, 16^TH CROSS, NANDINI HOTEL J P NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078.

¶21

1(c) SMT. SRIDEVI G W/O RAGHAVA, D/O LATE MR. K.T.GIRIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRI. KRUTHIKA, VIDYANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BEHIND MG PARK, HASSAN – 573 202.

¶22

1(d) MR. MURALI.G S/O LATE MR. K T GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT GIRIYANNA KT 154 CLASSIC ORCHARDS, PHASE - 2, KOTHANURU, JP NAGAR 8^TH PHASE BENGALURU SOUTH, MEENAKSHI TEMPLE, BENGALURU. (AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 18/12/2024)

¶23

…APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SHRIKARA P K, ADVOCATE FOR LR’S OF

¶25

DECEASED APPELLANT I.E. A1(a-d))

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

AND:

¶29

STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA,

¶30

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶31

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HAVING OFFICE AT: T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶32

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶33

SMT. H. V. JAYALAKSHMI W/O. LATE SAKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 421, 60^TH CROSS, HEALTH LAYOUT, ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGAR, SRIGANDADHAKAVAL, BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶34

SMT. NANDINI @ NANDINI BHARANAIAH D/O. LATE BHARANAIAH AND LATE SHANTHAMMA BHARANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 79,

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

”VENKATESHA NILAYA”, SERPENTINE ROAD, NEAR KANNIKAPARAMESHWARI TEMPLE, K.P. WEST, BENGALURU NORTH, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶38

THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DIVISION, CHOWDAIAH ROAD,

¶39

NH-4, KODANDARAMPURA, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BENGALURU - 560 012.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1;

¶42

SRI. A CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5;

¶43

SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶44

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF HON’BLE COURT IN WP No. 55091/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND ETC.,

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

IN WA NO. 1297/2024

¶48

BETWEEN:

¶49

SRI M SHASHIKUMAR S/O LATE MR MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.797 10^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶50

...APPELLANT

¶51

(BY SRI. HARISH B NARASAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H N NARENDRA DEV, ADVOCATE)

¶52

AND:

¶53

STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶54

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER HAVING OFFICE AT: T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶55

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶58

SMT. H V JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE SAKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.421 60^TH CROSS, HEALTH LAYOUT, ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGAR, SRIGANDADHAKAVAL BENGALURU – 560 091.

¶59

SMT. NANDINI @ NANDINI BHARANAIAH D/O LATE BHAANAIAH AND LATE SHANTHAMMA BHARANAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.79 “VENKATESHA NILAYA” SERPENTINE ROAD NEAR KANNIKAPARAMESHWARI TEMPLE K.P. WEST BENGALURU NORTH SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶60

THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BENGALURU SOUTH, SUB DIVISION BENGALURU URBAN DIVISION CHOWDAIAH ROAD NH-4 KODANDARAMPURA

¶61

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

MALLESHWARAM WEST BENGALURU – 560 012.

¶64

K T GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) FATHER’S NAME THIMIAH NO.797 10^TH MAIN 35^TH CROSS 4^TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011.

¶65

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs

¶66

7(a) SMT. GAYATHRI DEVI D/O. LATE. K. T. GIRIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT 116 2^ND FLOOR, 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN PRAYAG MONTESSORI PADMANABHA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 070.

¶67

7(b) SRI. K.G. NAGARAJ S/O. LATE. K. T. GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT 218 23^RD MAIN ROAD, 16^TH CROSS NANDINI HOTEL J. P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶68

8 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

7(c) SMT. SRIDEVI G D/O. LATE. K. T. GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI. KRUTHIKA VIDYANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BEHIND MG PARK HASSAN - 573 202.

¶72

7(d) SRI. MURALI G D/O. LATE. K. T. GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI KRUTHIKA VIDYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE, BEHIND MG PARK HASSAN - 573 202.

¶73

...RESPONDENTS

¶74

(BY SRI. M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R6;

¶75

SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶76

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No. 55091/2018 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND ETC.,

¶77

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶78

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶83

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶84

In Writ Appeal No.365/2024

¶85

This appeal has been filed by the appellant / petitioner (since deceased, represented by his legal heirs), impugning the judgment and order dated 20.12.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.55091/2018.

¶86

The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition, for the sake of convenience.

¶87

The BDA had published a preliminary notification dated 07.11.2002 under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short ‘the BDA Act’), proposing to acquire an extent of 1532 acres 17 guntas of land, including the land in the alleged ownership of the petitioners, measuring 10 acres 7 guntas in Survey Nos.70 and 71 of Turahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The purpose for acquiring the land was for the formation of further extension of Banashankari VI Stage. The State Government, however, had issued the final notification dated 09.09.2003

¶88

10 -

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act, acquiring an extent of 750 acres of land, which would include the lands in Survey Nos.70 and 71 as mentioned above.

¶92

The said final notification came to be challenged in a number of writ petitions before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.44949/2003, and connected cases. The petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No.53576/2003.

¶93

The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 06.06.2006 in Writ Petition No.44949/2003 and connected cases, upheld the final notification and rejected the challenge to the acquisitions in all the writ petitions. However, the acquisition was upheld subject to the following conditions:-

¶94

“The challenge to the acquisition in all these writ petitions falls and it is accordingly rejected. The acquisition proceedings are upheld, subject to the following conditions:

¶95

(A) The petitioners who are all the owners of sites in question (not duly converted for non-agricultural use in accordance with law) which are acquired are entitled to the following reliefs:

¶96

(i) These petitioners shall register themselves as applicants for allotment of sites under the Bangalore

¶97

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, within a period of two months from today (extendable by another one month by BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners will have to pay only the registration fee. They need not pay initial deposit as their sites have been acquired and they are not entitled to receive compensation in regard to the sites under this arrangement.

¶100

(ii) The petitioners shall file applications for allotment of sites to BDA within three months from today, in the prescribed form stating that they are applicants who were the petitioners in these writ petitions. Petitioners shall file their documents with BDA along with the application to verify the same

¶101

(iii) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to priority in allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30' x 40' in "Further Extension of Banashankari 6th Phase" or in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the prevailing allotment prices subject to petitioners satisfying the twin requirements for allotment under the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, that they must be the residents of Bangalore (ten years domicile) and should not be owning any residential property in Bangalore.

¶102

(iv) If there are no rival claimants for compensation in regard to the plots claimed by the petitioners, and if the ownership of the petitioners in

¶103

12 -

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

regard in their respective sites which have been acquired is not disputed BDA shall calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and give credit to the same by adjusting the same towards the allotment price for the site to be allotted and call upon the petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall be given six months time for making payment (to enable petitioners to know the amount of compensation, which they will be entitled and to ascertain how much balance they should pay).

¶107

(v) If there are rival claimants in regard to the survey numbers or the sites or if any petitioners' title in regard to the sites are challenged, BDA shall make a reference in regard to the compensation in regard to such site/land in question, to the Civil Court under Section-30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the petitioners will have to sort out the matter before the Reference Court. In that event, such petitioners will have to pay the full allotment price within the time stipulated, without seeking adjustment of compensation for the acquired site.

¶108

(vi) If any of the petitioners does not fullfill the requirements for allotment, under the allotment Rules, their cases may be considered for allotment of 20' x 30' sites as per the Rules containing incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of land. For the purpose of the said scheme, such petitioners will be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered the sites.

¶109

13 -

¶110

NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

(vii) The above scheme will be available to only those who are owners, as a consequence of execution of registered sale deeds in their favour prior to the date of preliminary notification (and not to GPA/Agreement Holders).

¶113

(viii) The Authorities shall also consider whether these petitioners have purchased the sites by way of investment or with the intention of having a roof over their head and based on the said consideration, to pass appropriate orders, in the light of the observations made in this order.

¶114

B-(i) All the petitioners who are the land owners/converted site owners (duly converted for non-agricultural use of land, in accordance with law), who are seeking dropping of the acquisition proceedings in so far as their respective lands/sites are concerned, on the ground that: (a) their lands are situated within green belt area (b) they are totally built up; (c) converted for non-agricultural use; (d) garden and recognised nursery lands; (e) who have bulit hospitals, educational institutions and factories; (f) who have not been served with the notice of acquisition and (g) who are in doubt about the inclusion of their land in the notification are permitted to make appropriate application to the authorities seeking such exclusion and exemption and producing documents to substantiate their

¶115

14 -

¶116

NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

contentions within three months from the date of this order.

¶119

(ii) It is made clear that the authority shall consider such request keeping in mind the status of the land as on the date of preliminary notification and to exclude any developments, improvements, constructions put up subsequent to the preliminary notification and then decide whether their cases are similar to that of the landowners whose objections were upheld and in respect of those lands no final notification is issued

¶120

(iii) In the event the Authority comes to the conclusion that those persons are similarly placed and are covered by the Resolution of the BDA dated 28.06.2003 in Subject No.177/2003, then to denotify their lands/sites, built up portion and exclude them from acquisition

¶121

(iv) Petitioners who are interested in availing this benefit shall make appropriate application within 90 days from the date of this order and thereafter, the authority shall give notice to those persons, hear them and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

¶122

(C) Till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the Authority on the applications filed by the petitioners either for allotment of site or for de-notifying or exemption sought for are considered, their possession shall not be disturbed and the existing

¶123

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶124

HC-KAR

¶125

construction shall not be demolished. After consideration of the application in the light of the aforesaid direction, the Authorities are at liberty to proceed with the acquisition.

¶126

(D) The suggestion made by this Court in paragraph-25 during the course of this order may be considered in all earnestness, particularly, in the cases of those who have already put up construction and living therein prior to preliminary notification.

¶127

These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.”

¶128

Thus, the petitioners / land owners were given option to file representations for release of their lands from the land acquisition proceedings if they believe that their lands fell within the exceptions as carved out by the High Court in the said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶129

The petitioners had filed representations before the Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘BDA’) for de-notifying their lands in Survey Nos.70 and 71 to an extent of 10 acres and 7 guntas. The BDA had considered their representations and passed a resolution dated 25.06.2007, in respect of the land in Survey Nos.70 and 71. The BDA had observed as under:-

¶130

16 -

¶131

NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶132

HC-KAR

¶133

Sl. No.	Name of the village	Survey Number	Total Extent Acres- Guntas	Notified Extent Acres- Guntas	Brief Details
9	Turahalli	70 71	4-13 5-34	4-13 5-34	The authority has constructed 3 roads on this land. Stone slabs have been laid and BDA name board has been erected. The Government vide its letter dated 26/12/2006 has stated that this land belongs to Forest department and therefore it should be dropped from the notification. This land could be handed over to the Forest department after verification.

¶134

Thus, the BDA in its resolution was of the opinion that as the State Government had stated that the said land in Survey Nos.70 and 71 belonged to Forest Department, the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the forest land to be dropped from the notification and the lands could be handed over to the Forest Department after verification. This observation in no way supports the petitioners in any manner.

¶135

The petitioner, thereafter, filed the second writ

¶136

petition being Writ Petition No.55091/2018 before this Court

¶137

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶138

HC-KAR

¶139

again challenging the preliminary and final notifications on the ground that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

¶140

The petitioner took the contention that as the BDA had passed the resolution to de-notify the land and in pursuance of the said resolution, the committee constituted namely, The De-notification Committee, under the Chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary of the State Government, passed a resolution, in its meeting held on 17.12.2008 in respect of the land in Survey Nos.70 and 71. It was observed that the BDA vide resolution dated 25.06.2007 vide Agenda No.118/07 had decided to drop lands in 21 survey numbers from the acquisition and the said resolution of the BDA was submitted to the Government on 09.04.2008, almost after a year. Thereafter, the Committee had recommended to drop the lands in said 21 survey numbers, including the survey Nos.70 and 71, from acquisition. This Resolution of the De-notification Committee would not support the petitioner's contention inasmuch as it is in pursuance of the resolution dated 25.06.2007 passed by the BDA, wherein it was observed that the Government had stated that the said land was of the Forest Department and therefore, the BDA in its resolution had

¶141

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶142

HC-KAR

¶143

said the acquisition proceeding should be dropped and the land in Survey Nos.70 and 71 could be handed over to the Forest Department.

¶144

The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment, dismissed the writ petition after considering the satellite image etc., and held that the petitioner had challenged the orders passed by the authorities holding the land in Survey Nos.70 and 71 as forest lands. The Writ Petition No.54268/2017 was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 27.02.2019 and the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the petitioner's case.

¶145

After the Court order dated 27.02.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.54268/2017, another survey was conducted on 22.07.2021, with the petitioner, the Appellate Authority and other officials of the Forest Department were also present in the survey. The question whether the subject property is a part of the forest or not is to be decided by the Conservator of Forests and subject to such conclusion, the State Government would have to take its decision on the BDA’s resolution dated

¶146

19 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶147

HC-KAR

¶148

25.06.2007 to exclude the subject property from the acquisition proceeding.

¶149

The learned Single Judge, in view of the aforesaid fact that the question whether the lands in Survey Nos.70 and 71 are forest lands or not for which the proceedings are pending, has held that the Court cannot declare that the Scheme for acquisition shall not be held.

¶150

During the hearing on 16.12.2005, the petitioners made a submission that lands were not acquired and the BDA had taken a decision to de-notify the lands by its resolution dated 25.06.2007 and the De-notification Committee by its resolution dated 07.12.2008 had affirmed the BDA resolution and therefore, the Government must act on its recommendation. We, therefore, on 16.12.2025, passed the following order:-

¶151

“We direct the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka to file an affidavit on the decision taken by the State Government on the Board Resolutions dated 25^th June 2007 and 17^th December 2008 regarding de-notifying

¶152

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶153

HC-KAR

¶154

the petitioners’ lands from the land acquisition proceedings in question.

¶155

Post these writ appeals on 21^st January 2026.”

¶156

In compliance of the said order passed by this Court, the respondent No.1 – State has filed the affidavit stating that the total lands in Survey Nos.70 and 71 is 10 acres 7 guntas and out of 10 acres 7 guntas, 7 acres of land is the minor forest. In respect of the 3 acres 7 guntas of land, the BDA has formed the sites and allotted to the allottees.

¶157

Considering the aforesaid facts stated on the affidavit, we are not giving our finding whether the demarcation of 7 acres land as a forest land is correct or incorrect. But, considering the fact that the land acquisition proceedings were got over after the final notification, for which the award was passed and compensation was deposited, there is no ground to interfere with the land acquisition proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

¶158

We make it clear, we agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the acquisition proceedings have not lapsed.

¶159

21 -

¶160

NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶161

HC-KAR

¶162

In Writ Appeal No.1297/2024

¶163

This appeal has been filed appellant, impugning the judgment and order dated 20.12.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.55091/2018.

¶164

The appellant was not a party before the learned Single Judge. His application for impleadment in Writ Appeal No.365/2024 came to be dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 02.09.2024 passed by this Court.

¶165

However, we have heard Mr. Harish B. Narasappa, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. H.N. Narendra Dev, learned counsel for the appellant, as intervener, as the appellant had purportedly entered into an agreement with the alleged owners, in respect of the said land. Their submissions have also been considered by us.

¶166

In view thereof, we affirm the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has been right in saying that merely on the ground that the dispute in respect of the land, whether it is a forest land or not, is pending, the land acquisition proceeding cannot be said to have

¶167

22 - NC: 2026:KHC:6182-DB WA No. 365 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1297 of 2024

¶168

HC-KAR

¶169

been lapsed, particularly, when the final notification was upheld by the learned Single Judge in judgment and the said judgment has attained finality. Ordered accordingly.

¶170

However, we make it clear that any observation made by us will not come in the way of the appellant establishing his right over the land in question.

¶171

Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and they are disposed of.

¶172

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶173

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶174

Bss

¶175

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri. K. T. Giriyanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. T. Giriyanna v. 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 Nanjunda Murthy Vs Sri L Prahalnada Rao

Smt. Sharadamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Metmin Investments Holdings Limited Vs Puthucode Vaidyanathan Balasubramanian

Maligamma Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Sri Vinayaka Housing Co. Operative Society Limited Vs the Commissioner

Smt Manuja S Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.