Karnataka High Court
Mrs. S. N. Vijayalakshmi vs State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2017
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 21st DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION No.16863 OF 2017(LR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Mrs. S.N.Vijayalakshmi
W/o Late Mr.K.V.Srinivasamurthy
Aged about 55 years.
2. Mr. K.V.Prabhakar,
S/o Late Mr. K.V.Sastry,
Aged about 62 years.
Petitioner No. 1 and 2 represented by
Their General Power of Attorney
K.V.Krishna Prasad
R/at No.80, Siddi Vinayaka Layout,
Aged about 48 years,
Sanjaya Nagara, Bengaluru. .... Petitioners
(By Sri. Sunil Dutt Yadav.S, Adv.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
By the Principal Secretary Revenue,
Vikasa Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi.
Bengaluru-560001.
2. Karnataka Land Tribunal,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
-2-
Bengaluru-560001
Represented by its Presiding Officer
3. Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru District
Bengaluru-560009.
4. Shri Syed Yusuff @ Syed Pyru,
S/o Syed Ahmed,
Aged about 80 years,
Bhoopasandra Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru District.
5. Shri Abdulla Sheriff @ Bhasha,
S/o Abdul Wahab Sheriff,
Bhoopasandra Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru District.
Since Deceased by his L.Rs.
(a) Smt Mallika Begum,
W/o Late Basha @ Abdulla Sheriff,
Aged about 60 years.
(b) Shri Shamshad,
D/o Late Basha @ Abdulla Sheriff,
Aged about 40 years.
(c) Smt. Shareen Bhanu,
D/o Late Basha @ Abdulla Sheriff,
Aged about 38 years.
(d) Shri Athaulla Sheriff,
S/o Late Basha @ Abdulla Sheriff,
Aged about 36 years.
(e) Shri Ziaulla Sheriff,
S/o Late Basha @ Abdulla Sheriff,
Aged about 34 years.
-3-
(f) Smt. Uma Asma
D/o Late Basha @ Abdulla Sheriff,
Aged about 32 years.
Petitioners: 5(a) to (f) are residing at:
No.53, 1st 'B' Cross,
Bhoopasandra,
Kasaba Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk-560094.
6. Shri Syed Bashith,
S/o Shri Syed Kareem,
Bhoopasandra,
Aged about 76 years,
Kasaba Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk-560094.
7. Shri Dhobi Muniswamy,
S/o Shri Thimaiah,
Hebbal Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
Since deceased Rep. by his L.Rs.
(a) Smt. Nagarathnamma,
Aged about 60 years,
W/o Shri H.M.Venkatappa,
No.323, 1st Main Road,
Hebbal, Bengaluru-560024.
(b) Smt. Rathnamma,
W/o Shri H.M.Krishnappa,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at No.34, 60 ft. Road,
Muneshwara Block,
Bhoopasandra New Layout,
Sanjayanagara, Bengaluru-560094.
-4-
(c) Smt. Rathnamma,
W/o Shri H.M.Yelappa,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.34, 60 ft. Road,
Muneshwara Block,
Bhoopasandra New Layout,
Sanjayanagara, Bengaluru-560094.
(d) Smt. Thimmakka,
D/o Late Dhobi Muniswamy,
Aged about 42 years,
2nd Cross, Bhoopasandra,
Muneshwara Layout,
Bengaluru-560094.
(e) Smt. Bhagyamma,
D/o Dhobi Muniswamy,
Aged about 40 years,
Yelavanahalli, Vijayapura,
Jangamakote Hobli,
Sidlaghatta Taluk, Kolar District.
8. Syed Manik Sha Darga,
By its Manager by Wakf Development
Corportation,
Hamidshah Complex,
Opposite Town Hall,
Bengaluru-560002.
... Respondents
(By Smt. B.P.Radha, HCGP, for R1 to R3)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to declare the
entertainment of application of R-4 and 5 under the
provisions of the Mysuru (Religious and Charitable) INAMS
Abolition Act, 1955 by R-2 and 3 as one being without
jurisdiction in the light of conferment of occupancy rights
in favour of Sri. Dhobimuniswamy in respect of Sy.No.20
-5-
of Boopasandra in Case No. 15/2 of 1963-64 and affirmed
in W.P.No.10682-87/1978 as per Annex.F, W.A. No.963-
968/1991 as per order dated 25.3.1991 as per Annexure-
G, SLP. CC 26783/1994 as per order dated 24.10.1994
vide Annexure-H and etc.,
This writ petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The plea of the petitioners is that the respondent- tribunal has issued notice to the petitioners notwithstanding the conclusion of the proceedings in the earlier round of litigation right up to the Supreme Court. Hence, he pleads that the proceedings be quashed.
2. On hearing learned counsels, I find no merit in this petition.
3. Even assuming that the proceedings before the tribunal are not maintainable on facts or on law, the tribunal should have been intimated with regard to the earlier proceedings. It is only thereafter if in spite of bringing it to the notice of the tribunal, if the proceedings are continued, it is only then the petitioners would have a -6- cause to question the proceedings. Hence, I'am of the view that the petition being premature cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE Ckl/-
Ct-bl