The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. Siddarama
2024 Latest Caselaw 659 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. Siddarama on 8 January, 2024

Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

                                                     -1-
                                                                NC: 2024:KHC:1725-DB
                                                                 RFA No. 1534 of 2019




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                              PRESENT
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
                                                   AND
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
                                    RFA NO. 1534 OF 2019 (RES)

                     BETWEEN:

                     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                     REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                     URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
                     VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001             ...APPELLANT

                     (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

                     AND:

                     1.      SRI. SIDDARAMA
                             AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
                             S/O PUTTASIDDAIAH

                     2.      SMT. PREMA
                             W/O SRI SIDDARAMA
                             AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
Digitally signed by
MALA K N             3.      SMT. R.V. ANUPAMA
Location: HIGH COURT         W/O LATE SRI.S. MANJUNATH
OF KARNATAKA                 AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

                     4.      MASTER ARYAN M
                             MINOR, S/O LATE SRI.S. MANJUNATH
                             SINCE MINOR, REP. BY HIS MOTHER
                             AND GUARDIAN SMT. R.V.ANUPAMA

                             RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT
                             NO. 1687, 18TH CROSS, 21ST MAIN
                             M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
                             BENGALURU - 560 040
                               -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:1725-DB
                                           RFA No. 1534 of 2019




5.   THE COMMISSIONER
     BRUHATH BENGALURU
     MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     BENGALURU - 560 002

6.    THE ASSISTANT FOREST CONSERVATIVE OFFICER
      BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
      ANNEXURE BUILDING -3, ROOM NO. 4 & 5
      N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRADEEP PATIL, ADV. FOR
    SRI.M. B. MOUNESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R5 & R6)

      THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2019
PASSED IN O.S.NO.5216/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY,   DECREEING    THE  SUIT  FOR   DAMAGES   AND
COMPENSATION.

      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

Shri Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA appears for

appellant-State and Shri Pradeep Patil, learned Advocate

appears for respondents No.5 and 6-BBMP.

2. Shri Vikas Rojipura has filed a memo of even

date seeking leave to withdraw this appeal. Memo reads

as follows:

"MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL

The above mentioned RFA No. 1534/2019 does not survive for consideration in view of the amicable settlement of the dispute in a parallel appeal, namely RFA No. 1046/2019, filed by the

NC: 2024:KHC:1725-DB

Commissioner, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, who is the 5th Respondent herein against the same Judgment and Decree, dated 08.04.2019, in O.S. No. 5216/2016, passed by the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. against which the present appeal has also been preferred. Therefore, the Appellant-State of Karnataka seeks the leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the above mentioned RFA No. 1534/2019."

2. Memo be kept in record. Leave granted. Appeal is

dismissed as withdrawn.

3. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending

interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for

consideration and they same stand disposed of.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PA CT:HS