Sri. B. L. Rajappa vs The Deputy Commissioner
2024 Latest Caselaw 26095 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. B. L. Rajappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 4 November, 2024

Author: S.G.Pandit

Bench: S.G.Pandit

                                              -1-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC:44180-DB
                                                         WA No. 971 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                           PRESENT
                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
                                             AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
                             WRIT APPEAL NO. 971 OF 2023 (SC-ST)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. B.L. RAJAPPA
                   S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH
                   AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
                   R/AT SHAKTHI NAGAR
                   BETTAHALASUR POST, JALA HOBLI
                   BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562 157
                                                                ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI. SHIVAKUMAR D.A, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed          BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
by SHAKAMBARI             BANGALORE - 560 009
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          2.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                          DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
                          DODDABALLAPUR-561 203

                   3.     SRI. PILLANJANAPPA
                          S/O LATE MUNIDODDAIAH
                          AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

                   4.     SRI. RAJAGOPAL
                          S/O LATE MUNIDODDAIAH
                          AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
                            -2-
                                   NC: 2024:KHC:44180-DB
                                      WA No. 971 of 2023




     RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE
     R/AT YELIYUR VILLAGE
     CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
     DEVANAHALLI TALUK
     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 157

5.   SRI. MUNIYAPPA
     S/O SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

6.   SMT. ANJINAMMA
     W/O LATE THAMMANNA
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

7.   SMT. SHANTHAMMA
     D/O LATE THAMMANNA
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

8.   SMT. SUMITHRA
     D/O LATE THAMMANNA
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

9.   SMT. MANJULA
     D/O LATE THAMMANNA
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

10. SMT. SHYLAJA
    D/O LATE THAMMANNA
    AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

     RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 10
     ARE RESIDING AT YELIYUR VILLAGE
     CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
     DEVANAHALLI TALUK
     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 157
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
     THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO    ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
QUASHING   THE   ORDER   DATED   05.08.2019   IN   NO.LND/
                              -3-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:44180-DB
                                          WA No. 971 of 2023




SC-ST/10/2014-15 AND NO.LND/SC-ST/11/2014-15 PASSED
BY   THE     1ST     RESPONDENT-DEPUTY           COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE      RURAL     DISTRICT,    BANGALORE,      AS   PER
ANNEXURE-'B' AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
           and
           HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR


                      ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Learned counsel Sri Prashanth Kumar for

Sri Shivakumar D.A., appearing for the appellant prays for

further time to comply the office objections by submitting

that cost imposed on 21.10.2024 has been paid.

2. This appeal is being listed for compliance of

office objections for 6th time. Without compliance of office

objections, cost paid cannot be accepted.

NC: 2024:KHC:44180-DB

3. The purpose of imposing cost is to see that

office objections are attended to. As the office objections

are not complied, appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/-

(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

SK