Karnataka High Court
Badada Raghavendrachar And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 April, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 200817 OF 2022 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
1. BADADA RAGHAVENDRACHAR
S/O BADADA NARASIMHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
OCC : HEREDITARY ARCHAKA
2. BADADA RAMACHAR
DEAD BY LR'S
2A) SMT. B. VIJAYA W/O BADADHA RAMACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: JAPADAKATTE, BICHALI VILLAGE,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT: RAICHUR.
Digitally signed
by SACHIN 2B) SMT SHYLAVI W/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO,
Location: HIGH AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA VILLA NO.11, NAPLE TOWN,
BANDLAGUDA JAGIR, HYDERABAD,
TELNGANA STATE.
2C) SMT GAUTAMI W/O RAMESH JAYARAM,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
PLOT NO.143, SRINIVASA HILLS COLONY,
PARVATHAPUR, UPPAL, HYDERABAD.
2D) SMT VAISHNAVI W/O PRADEEP KUMAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
FLAT NO.5302, VIDAVATHI BLOCK,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
NANDI ENCLAVE, BANASHANKARI
IV STAGE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA.
2E) BICHALI PAVAN KUMAR
S/O BADADHA RAMACHAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HEREDITARY ARCHAKA,
JAPADAKATTE, BICHALI VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DIST. RAICHUR.
3. BADADA KRISHNACHAR
S/O BADADA NARASIMHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC : HEREDITARY ARCHAKA,
4. BADADA SHAMACHAR
S/O BADADA NARASIMHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC : HEREDITARY ARCHAKA,
PETITIONER NO.1, 3 AND 4 ARE
R/O H.NO.1 TO 7,
JAPADAKATTE BICHALLI,
POST. BICHALI,
RAICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANANT MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SHIVASHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (LAND GRANT-3),
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR DISTRICT,
RAICHUR-584101.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903
WP No. 200817 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR CIRCLE,
RAICHUR-584101.
4. TAHSILDAR,
RAICHUR TALUK,
RAICHUR-584101.
5. SHREE RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT
NANJANGUD, DISTRICT MYSORE,
MANTHARALAYA CAMP
ANDHARA PRADESH
REPRESENTED BY ITS PONTIFF
SRI SUBHUDENDRA
THEERTHA SWAMIJI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA P.TIWARI, AAG AND SRI MALHARA RAO, AAG A/W SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, SRI J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, MORE SO IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS :
I) QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO.RD.20/LGR 21, BENGALURU DATED 24.02.2022 COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-J; II) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER, IMMEDIATELY THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 24.06.2006 COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-B FOR GRANTING THE LAND SY.NO.35 MEASURING 1 ACRE 2 GUNTAS AND SY.NO.37 MEASURING 1 ACRE 31 GUNTAS, BOTH SITUATED AT VILLAGE BICHALI, HOBLI GILLESUGUR, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN VIEW OF THE POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION OF THESE LANDS BY THE PETITIONERS FROM A LONG TIME; III) QUASH THE ORDER BEARING C.NO.24928, DCRAI-LND0MISC/48/2021RAI, DATED 28.03.2022 PASSED BY -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L; AND IV) ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CAV ORDER
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) Quash the Government order bearing No.RD.20/LGR 21, Bengaluru dated 24.02.2022 copy of which is at Annexure-J;
(ii) Direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider, immediately the application of the petitioners dated 24.06.2006 copy of which is at Annexure-B for granting the land Sy.No.35 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas and Sy.No.37 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas, both situated at village Bichali, Hobli Gillesugur, Tq. and Dist. Raichur, in favour of the petitioners -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR herein in view of the possession and occupation of these lands by the petitioners from a long time;
(iii) Quash the order bearing C.No.24928, DCRAI-
LND0MISC/48/2021RAI, dated 28.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-L; and
(iv) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
3. Petitioners claim that, the land bearing Sy.Nos.35 and 37 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas and 1 acre 31 guntas respectively, situated at Bichali village, Raichur taluka and district, has been in possession and enjoyment by the forefathers of the petitioners who according to them had developed the property and constructed Brindavana in the memorial of Shree Raghavendra Swamy and have been performing the religious rituals. The property is now known as "Shree Kshetra Bichali". The petitioners claim that, they have filed an application on 24.06.2006 before the Assistant Commissioner, Raichur -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR with a copy to the Tahasildar, Raichur with a prayer to regularize their unauthorized occupation of the land in question. It appears that, the 5th respondent-Mutt had also filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, with a prayer to grant the aforesaid land under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1969'). The Deputy Commissioner after verifying the credentials of 5th respondent had submitted a proposal seeking approval of the State Government to allot the aforesaid land in favour of the 5th respondent. The State Government vide order at Annexure-K dated 24.02.2022 has accorded permission to grant the aforesaid land in favour of the 5th respondent after collecting 50% of the guideline value of the property and other applicable fees. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, the State Government as well as the -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR Deputy Commissioner have flouted all the applicable statutory provisions while passing the impugned order. He submits that, 5th respondent is a "Mutt" and therefore, cannot be considered as a Charitable Institution for the purpose of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969. The beneficiary should be a Religious and Charitable Institution. He submits that, the petitioners had made a rival claim in support of the lands in question and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was under the obligation to consider the petitioners claim along with the claim of the 5th respondent. He submits that, the material on record would go to show that, the petitioners and their forefathers have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question for time immemorial. The impugned order has been passed at the instance of the then Revenue Minister and Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Minister. He submits that, the petitioners claim under Rule 108-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 has not been considered till date and therefore, a prayer is also made to -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned authorities to consider the petitioners claim at Annexure- D. He submits that, though the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question without taking any action to vacate them, the impugned order at Annexure-K has been passed. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following Judgments:
(a) Krishne Gowda Vs. Lobo - ILR 1992 Kar. 1382;
(b) Radha Bhai Vs. Shashikala and ors. - ILR 1998 Kar. 302;
(c) Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and ors. - (2004) 2 SCC 65;
(d) Sri. Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. - 2024 (4) KarLJ 259;
(e) The St. Annes Education Society and another Vs. State of Karnataka by Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Revenue - ILR 2002 KAR 4096;
(f) Sri Sri Sri Madhusudanandapuri Swamiji, Matadhipathi and Peetadhikari Omkar Ashram Vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue and ors. - MANU/KA/0189/2009 : WP No.11506/2008 dated 03.07.2009;-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR
(g) Raghavendra Swami Mutt Vs. Board of Commissioners, Hindu Religious Endowments - AIR 1957 AP 150.
(h) S.P.Kapoor and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others - AIR 1981 SC 2181;
(i) Arjunappa and others vs. State of Karnataka and others - MANU/KA/3255/2022 : 2022 KHC 22810;
(j) U.M.Ramesh Rao and othes vs. Union Bank of India and others - ILR 2021 KAR 2196
5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents/State submits that petitioners have no locus to maintain this writ petition. She submits that petitioners have challenged the order at Annexure-K dated 24.02.2022 which is a prior approval granted by the State in compliance of the requirement of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969. The Deputy Commissioner has subsequently passed an order granting the land in question in favour of the 5th respondent on 28.03.2022 which is produced as Anneuxre-R19 in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State. She submits that petitioners have not questioned the said order passed by
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969. She submits that petitioners have not filed any application under Rule 21 of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 and it is only the trust which was formed by petitioner Nos.2 and 4 herein had filed an application for grant of lands in question. She submits that application of the said trust and the application of the 5th respondent was jointly considered and based on the report of the concerned authorities, Deputy Commissioner after prior approval of the State has rightly granted the land to the 5th respondent. She submits that there is a inter se dispute between the petitioners with regard to performing of pooja at the Brindavana which exists in the land in question. Petitioners are only Archaks. Petitioners at best would be considered as Archaks, performing pooja at the Brindavana of Shree Raghavendra Swamy existing in the lands in question. Petitioners claim is under Section 94-A of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 read with Rule 108-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 which provides
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR for regularization of the unauthorised occupation. Application at Annexure-D filed by the petitioners is not in the prescribed form. Petitioners, who have claimed rights of performing pooja in the suit in O.S.No.113/2016 filed by them cannot be considered as unauthorised occupants of the lands in question.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 having adopted the arguments addressed by learned Additional Advocate General submits that the competent authority after considering all the reports from the concerned authorities with the prior approval of the State has passed an order on 28.03.2022 granting the land in dispute in favour of the 5th respondent and the said order has not been questioned. He submits that petitioners application at Annexure-D is claiming regularization of only Sy.No.37, whereas the grant is in respect of Sy.No.35/*/* and Sy.No.37/*/* of Bichali village, Raichur Taluk. Petitioners also had filed a suit claiming adverse possession of the lands in question against the State and its instrumentality,
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR which was subsequently withdrawn. The claim of petitioners is not consistent and therefore prays to dismiss the petition.
7. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 had formed a trust known as Shree Thirtha Kshethra Bichali Japadakatti Development and Welfare Trust which was registered on 15.12.2012 and petitioner Nos.2 and 4 had formed a trust known as Japadakatti Bichali Appannacharya Seva Trust (R), Shree Theertha Kshetra Bikshalaya which was registered on 08.03.2013. It appears that the trust formed by petitioner Nos.2 and 4 and the 5th respondent-Mutt are the applicants under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. The Deputy Commissioner, after considering those two applications, had called for reports from the concerned revenue authorities and based on the said report, appears to have forwarded a proposal to the State Government for according prior approval to grant the lands in question in favour of the 5th respondent.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR Considering the said proposal and all the other relevant documents which were forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, the State Government vide the order impugned at Annexure-K dated 24.02.2022 has accorded prior approval for granting the aforesaid two lands in favour of the 5th respondent. Pursuant to the order at Annexure-K, passed by the State Government, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on 28.03.2022 at Annexure-R19, granting the lands in question infavour of 5th respondent. Undisputedly, the said order has not been questioned by the petitioners or anybody else till date.
8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the authority concerned has erred in considering the application of the 5th respondent without clubbing the petitioners application.
9. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that petitioners have filed an application seeking regularisation of their unauthorised occupation of one of
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR the items of the land which is subject matter of the order impugned. The application of the petitioners is as provided under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 and Rule 108-CCC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Application of the 5th respondent is for grant the lands in question as provided under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969. The competent authority to consider the application of the petitioners and to consider the application of the 5th respondent are different. For the purpose of considering an application under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969, the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority and for the purpose of considering an application under Section 94-A read with Rule 108-CCC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, the Committee constituted under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is the competent authority.
10. Under the circumstances, there was no occasion for the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner to club the application of the petitioners along with the application of
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR 5th respondent which was filed before him. Therefore, the judgment in the case of Krishne Gowda vs. Lobo reported in ILR 1992 KAR 1382 and in the case of Radha Bai vs. Shashikala and others reported in ILR 1998 KAR 302 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. Claim of the petitioners is for regularization of their unauthorised occupation of one of the items of the land which is subject matter of the order impugned. According to the petitioners their claim for regularisation of the unauthorised occupation of the land question is as provided under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Rule 108-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 which is found in Chapter XIII-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Rule 108-F of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 provides for eligibility for grant. The same reads as follows :
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR "108-F. Eligibility for Grant. - No person shall be eligible for grant of land under this Chapter, unless.-
(i) he has attained the age of eighteen years;
and
(ii) xxxx.
(iii) he is a permanent resident within the limits of the Taluk in which the land is situated or in the adjacent Taluk; and
(iv) he is a bona fide agriculturist cultivating the land personally and is not prohibited from holding or acquiring land under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961; and
(v) he is in authorized occupation of land for at least a continuous period of not less than three years prior to the Fourteenth day of April, 1990:
Provided that in the case of persons belonging to scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, such period shall be not less than one year.
(vi) Applicant is in unauthorized occupation of Land applied, for at least a continuous period of not less than three years prior to the first day of January, 2005."
12. Rule 108-F sub-rule (iv) clearly states that only a person who is a bona fide agriculturist cultivating the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR land personally is eligible for grant of land under Chapter XIII-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.
13. Material on record would go to show that in the lands in question no agricultural activities are carried on and on the other hand the said land are developed and number of buildings are in existence. Even according to the petitioners, in the lands in question, the Brindavana of late Shree Raghavendra Swamy is in existence and pooja and other religious rituals are being performed in the said land. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are carrying on agricultural activities in the land in question and therefore their claim for regularization of their unauthorised occupation in respect of the lands in question is not maintainable.
14. It is relevant to note here that petitioners had filed O.S.No.59/2022 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Raichur against the respondent/State and its instrumentality with a prayer for declaration of their title
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR by adverse possession. In the said suit, petitioners have described the lands in question as religious and tourist spot which consists of goshala, kirana shop, kitchens, toilets, resting rooms, two anna dasoha kendras in addition to the Brindavana of late Shree Raghavendra Swamy and temple of Narasimha Swamy.
15. O.S.No.113/2016 was filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Raichur by petitioners No.1 and 3 herein against petitioner Nos.2 and 4. In the said suit, petitioner Nos.2 and 4 have filed a written statement and in paragraph Nos.6 to 9 of the written statement filed in the said suit by petitioner Nos.2 and 4 herein, it is stated as follows :
"6. The defendants humbly submit that the plaintiff No:1 was a Research Officer in ICRISAT, Hyderabad and the Plaintiff No: 2 was working as a regional sales officer for RAPTAKOS-BRETT [Pharmaceuticals], Hyderabad, and both having retired from the jobs do not have you any productive work, as such taking advantage of the Def No:1's accident and his paraplegia [confined to a wheelchair] during first week of September 2012 came to Bichali Village & started sitting near the Japada Katte by DONNING THE ATTIRE OF A POIUS
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR BRAMHIN BY WEARING SILK MADI VASTRA & PUTTING GOPI CHANDAN MUDRAS, STARTED THUGGING UNWARY DEVOTEES BY COLLECTING DONATIONS IN NAME OF TEMPLE & GODS AT JAPADAKATTE.
7. The defendants, humbly submit that, the entire Japadakatte was washed away in the River Tungabhadra floods of 2009 and the defendants were seeking the help of local villagers and devotees to reconstruct the entire setup by seeking for small donations from the duties, but in the meanwhile taking advantage of the Flash floods, the plaintiffs approached the Thasildhar, Raichur and filed an application on a COMPUTERISED DOCTORED/FAKE LATER PAD, wherein the Plaintiff No: 2 illegally claimed to be secretary and the Plaintiff No: 1 cleaning as the President of a FICTITIOUS ORGANISATION "SHREE THIRTHA KSHETRA JAPADA KATTE BICHALI" got sanctioned the compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/- out of which they got released Rs.3,00,000/- and SIPHONED OFF THE GOVERNMENT MONEY, however with the intervention of the defendants the government stopped the further disbursal of Rs.3,00,000/- flood compensation amount and the defendants have produced the documents pertaining to same for the perusal of the honourable court.
8. The defendants humbly submit that they intended to file criminal case against the plaintiffs, but their sisters and other family members desisted them from doing so, because ultimately the revered name of the late father and the ancestors would be affected.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR
9. The defendants humbly submit that, the plaintiffs did not stop at that and INSPITE OF NOT AT ALL BEING AT THE HELM OF AFFAIRS NOR CONNECTED TO ANY OF THE DIVINE ACTIVITIES BEING EXCLUSIVELY UNDERTAKEN BY THE DEFENDANTS herein and ONLY WITH THE SOLE & VILE INTENTION OF MAKING ILLEGAL MONEY BY THUGGING NAIVE DEVOTEES, the plaintiffs illegally got registered a Trust Deed consisting of only their family members totally excluding the defendants and other family members and then got printed receipts and again DONNING THE ATTIRE OF A POIUS BRAMHIN BY WEARING SILK MADI VASTRA & PUTTING GOPI CHANDAN MUDRAS, STARTED THUGGING UNWARY DEVOTEES BY COLLECTING DONATIONS IN NAME OF THE TRUST."
16. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that petitioners inter se have a dispute with regard to performing of pooja and other religious rituals at the Brindavana and at the temple existing in the property in question. As stated earlier, two separate trusts have been formed by the petitioners herein and it appears that they have inter se dispute. One of the trust formed by petitioner Nos.2 and 4 by name Japadakatti Bichali Appannacharya Seva Trust (R), Shree Theertha Kshetra Bikshalaya which was registered on 08.03.2013 has filed
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR an application before the Deputy Commissioner for grant of the land. However, the said trust is not before this Court challenging the order impugned and in the absence of the trust, the petitioners independently are not entitled to maintain this writ petition challenging the order impugned more so when they have not even filed an appropriate application before the Deputy Commissioner for grant of lands in question. In addition to the same, since the application of petitioners for regularisation of their unauthorized occupation of the lands in question itself is not maintainable, it is not necessary for this court to delve into the merits of the case, more so where the order of grant at Annexure-R19 has been not at all challenged by the petitioners.
17. The judgment in the case of St.Annes Education Society and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2002 KAR 4096 on which reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, cannot be made
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2903 WP No. 200817 of 2022 HC-KAR applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 101