Karnataka High Court
Sri. S. Muniyappa @ Muniga vs The Deputy Commissioner on 7 March, 2025
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
MFA No. 746 of 2025
C/W WP No. 19009 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.746 OF 2025 (CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.19009 OF 2023
IN MFA.NO.746/2025:
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. MUNIYAPPA S,
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
2 . SRI. CHIKKAMUNIYAPA,
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
by NIJAMUDDIN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560063.
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. T. R. GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHIVANANDA. R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KALAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND SMT. AKKAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
MFA No. 746 of 2025
C/W WP No. 19009 of 2023
2. SMT. S M MANJULA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND
SMT. AKKAYAMMA,
W/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
3. S M NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND
SMT. AKKAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
4. S M NAGARAJA
S/O LATE MUNIYIAPPA AND
SMT. AKKAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
5. S M MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND
SMT. AKKAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
6. SMT. AKKAYAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA,
W/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
7. SMT MUNIYAMMA,
D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA,
W/O NARASIMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
8. SMT. LAKSHMI,
D/O LATE ANJINAMMA AND
NARASIMAIAH, W/O MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
9. SRI. VENKATARAYAPPA N.
S/ O LATE ANJINAMMA
AND NARASIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
MFA No. 746 of 2025
C/W WP No. 19009 of 2023
ALL ARE R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -560063
10 . SRI. RAVINDRA L,
S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
11 . SRI. PARTHA L
S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.10 AND 11 ARE
R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -560063
12 . SRI PRAKASH GANGARAM,
S/O LATE N. GANGARAM,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT NO.70, ABSHOT LAYOUT,
SANKEY CROSS,
RAMANAGARA-560 052.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R9;
SRI. MITHUN G. A., ADVOCATE FOR R12)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF CPC, PRAYING TO 1) CALL FOR
RECORDS IN O.S.NO.1068/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT DEVANAHALLI 2) SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 24.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.1068/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, AT DEVANAHALLI. I.A.I BE REJECTED TO MEET THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
MFA No. 746 of 2025
C/W WP No. 19009 of 2023
IN W.P.NO.19009/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. S. MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIGA,
S/O. SRI. CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
2. SRI. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
S/O. SRI. CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
3. SRI. MUNIKRISHNA
S/O. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
4. SRI. SRINIVASA,
S/O. SRI. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
5. SRI. VENKATESH,
S/O. SRI. CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
6. SRI. MANJUNATHA,
S/O. SRI. CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
PETITIONERS NO.1, 2 TO 4 TO 6
REP. BY PETITIONERS NO.3 GPA HOLDER SRI.
MUNIKRISHNA
ALL RESIDING AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK-562157
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560009.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BENGLAURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU-560009.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
MFA No. 746 of 2025
C/W WP No. 19009 of 2023
3 . SMT. MUTTAMMA,
W/O. LATE SRI. LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL)
TALUK-562157.
4 . SRI. PRAKASH GANGARAM,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O. LATE SRI.N. GANGARAM
NO.17, ABSHET LAYOUT,
SANKEY ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU - 560052
5 . SRI.N. SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O. LATE SRI. K. NINHGAIAH,
NO.8/1A, SHIVAKRUPA,
KEMPANNA ROAD,
DODDAMAVALLI,
BENGALURU - 560004.
6 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B. S. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R6;
SRI. MITHUN G. A., ADVOCATE FOR R4 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR
ORDER QUASHING THE ORDERS PASSED UNDER ANNEXURE-B
IN THE CASE NO.KSCST(A) 132/2016-17 DATED 23.06.2023
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ANNEXURE-A IN THE
CASE KSCST.NO.78/2011-12 DTD 22.12.2014 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,
THESE MFA AND WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT AND ORDER ON 28.02.2025,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, MADE THE
FOLLOWING.,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
MFA No. 746 of 2025
C/W WP No. 19009 of 2023
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON: 28.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.03.2025
CAV JUDGMENT
The Writ Petition No.19009/2023 is filed by the
petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other
writ or order quashing the orders in the case of
KSCST.No.78/2011-12 dated 22.12.2014, passed by the
respondent No.2 and in the case of
KSCST(A).No.132/2016-17 dated 23.06.2023, passed by
the respondent No.1.
02. The MFA.No.746/2025 is filed by the appellants
/ defendants No.1 and 2 under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC,
praying to set aside the order dated 24.10.2024 on
I.A.No.I, which is filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of
CPC, in O.S.No.1068/2024, on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli.
03. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
appellants and the respondents in both the cases.
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
04. The fact of the case in W.P.No.19009/2023 is
that the petitioners are belongs to Scheduled Caste (Adi
Dravida). The father of the petitioners No.1 and 2 viz., Sri.
Chikkamunishamappa, was granted a land in new
Sy.No.58 (Old No.10) measuring 03 acres 17 guntas
situated at Sonnappanahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru
North (Addl) Taluka, (hereinafter referred as 'suit
scheduled property') with a condition imposed by the
respondent No.3 not to alienate the property for 15 years.
It is further contended that the late father of the
petitioners was illiterate and his sons were also illiterate.
They were working as coolie labourers under respondent
No.3 - Smt. Muttamma. By taking undue advantage, the
respondent No.3 - Smt. Muttamma got executed the
mortgage deed in her favour on 03.06.1969. On the basis
of the mortgage deed, she got the Khata transferred in her
name. Later she got converted the land into Non-
Agricultural land and sold to the father of the respondent
No.4 viz., Gangaram under various sale deeds. The
petitioners were in possession, the same was taken by
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
them by force violating Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition and
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred
as 'PTCL Act'). Hence, the petitioners have filed a petition
before the respondent No.2 in KSCST.No.78/2011-12,
which came to be rejected on 22.12.2014. An appeal was
filed before the respondent No.1 in
KSCST(A).No.132/2016-17, which also came to be
rejected by the respondent No.1, holding that the grant
was not comes under the PTCL Act and passed the order.
05. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
are before this Court.
06. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
contended that the petitioners and their father were the
members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Adi
Dravida). On request before the Deputy Commissioner,
the land in question was granted with a non-alienation
clause of 15 years, but the same was ignored by both
respondents No.1 and 2 and rejected the application
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
holding that the land was granted under Grow More Food
Scheme, which is not correct. Therefore, both the orders
were under challenge, require for setting aside. Hence,
prayed for allowing the petition.
07. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents No.1, 2 to 6 as well as Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents No.4 have
objected the petition by supporting the order of the
respondents No.1 and 2. They have contended that the
land in question was granted to the father of the
petitioners under the Grow More Food Scheme, but not
under the PTCL Act. Therefore, question of challenging the
sale deed and setting aside the sale deed by invoking the
provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act, does not arises.
Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
08. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents No.1, 2 to 6 also contended that the land in
question was granted under Grow More Food Scheme,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
which is not false under the PTCL Act. Therefore, question
of setting aside the sale deed or any other deed by the
Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner does
not arises. Now, the land was already alienated long back.
Therefore, the question of setting aside the sale deed does
not arises. The provisions of PTCL Act, also not applicable
to the case on hand. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the
petition.
09. The learned counsel for the petitioners further
argued by filing the rejoinder that the father of the
petitioners was mortgaged the property to the respondent
No.3 - Smt. Muttamma, but Smt. Muttamma sold the
property, who do not have any right, title or interest over
the said property for alienating by her. The title was not
transfer to the respondent No.3 - Smt. Muttamma and she
will not become the owner. She is only a mortgagee under
the Mortgage Deed in the year 1969. It was also
contended that once the mortgage deed, is always
mortgage. Once a mortgage is always a mortgage, the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
petitioners though approached the wrong forum, but they
have also preparing to file a suit for redemption of the
mortgage. Though, it was also contended that in the year
1974 there was a unregistered redemption mortgage
deed, but it was not produced. Therefore, it is contended
that the petitioners also having a right to file the suit
against the respondents No.3 to 5 for redemption of
mortgage and canceling the sale deeds. Hence, prayed for
allowing the petition.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents No.3 to 5 once again contended that there is
a inordinate delay in approaching the Court. Therefore, no
liberty is granted to the petitioners. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
11. As regards to the MFA.No.746/2025, the
appellants case is that the respondents No.1 to 9 have
filed a suit against the appellants as well as respondents
No.10 to 12 for seeking partition and separate possession
in respect of the land old Sy.No.10 (Block No.11) New
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
Sy.No.58 measuring 03 acres 17 guntas situated at
Sonnappanahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North (Addl)
Taluka, contending that the said land was granted to their
father - Sri. Chikkamunishamappa and he is having wife -
Smt. Narasamma and having 06 children (1) Smt.
Akkayamma (mother of the plaintiffs No.1 to 5, (2) Sri.
Muniyappa (defendant No.1, (3) Smt. Akkayamma
(Plaintiff No.6), (4) Sri. Chikkamuniyappa (defendant
No.2), (5) Smt. Muniyamma (Plaintiff No.7), (6) Smt.
Anjinamma (mother of the plaintiffs No.8 and 9), were all
constituted a Hindu Undivided Joint Family and there was
no partition. The land in question was granted to their
father. They are in joint possession. After the death of the
Sri. Chikkamunishamappa, the land was mortgaged to
Smt. Muttamma the mother of the defendants No.3 and 4
for Rs.1,000/- under mortgage deed dated 03.06.1969 for
a period of 05 years, with understanding that the property
shall be cultivated by the mortgagee. The said Smt.
Muttamma mortgagee continued with the possession and
the mortgage was redeemed on 22.02.1974. In pursuance
to the discharge, the plaintiffs' family were continued in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
possession. The plaintiffs have demanded their share from
the defendants No.1 and 2 for partition and separate
possession, but they denied and it was came to know that
the suit schedule property was already sold to the mother
of the defendants No.3 and 4, as the revenue records were
shown in the name of Smt. Muttamma under MR.No.T-
10/2024-25. She said to be executed the sale deeds. The
said Smt. Muttamma do not have any right, title or
interest over the property for alienation to any third
person or in favour of Gangaram. Therefore, the said sale
deed executed by mother of the defendants No.3 and 4 is
not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, prayed for granting
4/6th share to the plaintiffs and the sale deed executed on
06.11.1996, 07.11.1996 totally 16 sale deeds on various
dates are not binding on them. Hence, they filed a suit.
12. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs have also filed
I.A. under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, for granting ad-
interim injunction. The Trial Court has granted the ad-
interim temporary injunction against the defendants not to
alienate the suit scheduled property to any third party.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
13. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants
No.1 and 2 are before this Court by filing this appeal.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants has
contended that the land in question was a granted land in
favour of their father. It was mortgaged to Smt.
Muttamma in the year 1969. It was redeemed in the year
1974 and the property in question was in possession of the
appellants, who are the children of Sri.
Chikkamuniswamappa. By taking undue advantage of the
mortgage without redemption, they falsely claiming that
they are the owners. The said Smt. Muttamma was
executed the sale deed to various persons, who do not
have any right, title or interest over property. On the basis
of the mortgage deed, she has executed a sale deed.
Therefore, the same is not binding on the plaintiffs and
defendants No.1 and 2 and no title transfer to the
purchasers. Therefore, the order under challenge directing
these appellants, not to alienate the property, is not
correct. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
15. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents No.10 to 12 has objected the appeal
contending that the land in question was already sold and
purchased the property under various sale deeds. They are
also in possession of the property. Such being the case,
the injunction is also against the appellants, but the
defendants No.3 to 5 are in actual possession suit
schedule property. Therefore, the appeal filed by the
appellants is not maintainable. There is no question arise
for interfering in the suit scheduled property. Hence,
prayed for dismissing the appeal.
16. Having heard the arguments and perused the
records, the property in question is land in Old Sy.No.10
and New Sy.No.58 measuring 03 acres 17 guntas was
subject matter in both these appeal as well as in the writ
petition. Hence, as per the order, this writ petition was
clubbed in this appeal to pass a common judgment and
order.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
17. Having heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for both the parties, the points that arises for my
consideration are :-
I. Whether the respondents No.1 and 2 are justified in
passing the orders by rejecting the application filed
by the petitioners under the PTCL Act.?
II. Whether the appellants in MFA.No.746/2025 made
out prima-facie case in their favour for setting aside
the order of alienation passed by the Trial Court by
granting ad-interim temporary injunction, calls for
interference.?
18. On perusal of the records in both the cases,
which reveals that the land in question i.e., suit scheduled
property was granted land by the Deputy Commissioner to
the father of the petitioners viz., Sri.
Chikkamunishamappa with non-alienation clause for 15
years. The petitioners have filed the petition before
respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner in
KSCST.No.78/2011-12 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act,
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
for setting aside the transfer and sale deed by the said
Smt. Muttamma in favour of other respondents. The
respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner rejected the
petition. Therefore, an appeal came to be filed before the
Deputy Commissioner - respondent No.1 in
KSCST(A).No.132/2016-17, which also came to be
dismissed, holding that the land in question was granted
to the father of the petitioners under the Grow More Food
Scheme by the then the Government of Karnataka, but not
under the PTCL Act.
19. The respondents No.2 - Assistant Commissioner
categorically has held in its order that the land was
granted to Sri. Chikkamunishamappa under the Grow More
Food Scheme, but not under the PTCL Act, in order to
cancel the sale deed. Though, the father of the petitioners
belongs to member of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes, but the land was not granted under the
PTCL Act, but under the Grow More Food Scheme. On
considering the facts of the case, he has rejected the
application for restoration of the land.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
20. The respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner in
the appeal at Annexure-B also taken view that the land in
question was granted to Sri. Chikkamunishamappa, under
the Grow More Food Scheme and also dismissed the
appeal filed by the petitioners.
21. The learned counsel for the respondents relied
upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and
also the orders of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in
respect of the land granted under the Grow More Food
Scheme. The Division Bench of this Court has also rejected
the prayer of restoring the land under the PTCL Act in
W.A.No.210/2023 (SC/ST) in the case SMt.
M.Manjula and others vs. The Deputy Commissioner
Bengaluru and others, on the ground of delay and
latches. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.13192/2023 and connected matters
dated 24.01.2025 has held that the Government of
Mysore in order to increase the lands under the cultivation
and enhance the food grains framed the rules and some of
the land was granted to some other persons under the
Grow More Food Scheme.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
22. After raising these objections, the learned
counsel for the petitioners fairly admits that the lands
under challenge is not under the PTCL Act. However, it is
granted in favour of the petitioners and Sri.
Chikkamunishamappa, mortgaged the property to
defendant No.3 and now it is stated that he will file suit for
redemption of mortgage. Though, the learned counsel for
the respondents objected the same, as there is inordinate
delay etc.,
23. There is no limitation for redemption the
mortgage and it is well settled once a mortgage always a
mortgage. Therefore, the respondent No.3 will not become
the owner of the property in order to alienate the same.
24. Such being the case, this Court do not find any
error committed by the respondents No.1 and 2 in
rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under
Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Therefore, if at all any relief the
petitioners are entitled, they have to file the suit for
redemption of mortgage under the Code of Civil
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
Procedure, but filed the petition before the Assistant
Commissioner. In spite of passing the order rejecting the
petition, he has filed the appeal before the respondent
No.1 - Deputy Commissioner and filed this writ petition.
When the land is not granted under the PTCL Act, the
question of restoring the land to the petitioners under
Section 5 of PTCL Act, does not arises at all. Therefore, the
respondents No.1 and 2 rightly rejected the application
filed by the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is
devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.
25. As regards to the MFA.No.746/2025 the
appellants are the defendants No.1 and 2, they have
challenged the injunction order granted against them as
well as defendants No.3 to 6. Though, the lands belongs to
the defendants and the plaintiffs who said to be Hindu
Undivided Joint Family, but the land in question was
mortgaged to the defendant No.3 - Smt. Muttamma in the
year 1969 by the father of the defendants No.1 and 2 and
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
the plaintiffs. Though, the defendant No.3 does not have
any right over the said property, but sold the land to other
defendants. The father of the defendants No.1 and 2
mortgaged the property to one Smt. Muttamma. The said
Smt. Muttamma sold the property to other defendants.
26. Such being the case, if the injunction is not
granted in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit, there is every
possibility of alienation of the property by the other
defendants are not ruled out.
27. The duty of the Trial Court to protect the suit
schedule property until disposal of the suit. Such being the
case, there is no perversity in the order passed by the
Trial Court by granting ad-interim temporary injunction
against the defendants not to alienate the suit schedule
property. The defendants are the brothers of the plaintiffs
in the suit, until disposal of the suit, it is necessary for the
Trial Court to protect the interest of the plaintiffs in the
suit.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
28. That apart, as held above, the very sale deed
executed by the Smt. Muttamma in favour of other
defendants do not create any right, title or interest over
the property to other defendants, as the very defendant
No.3 - Smt. Muttamma, herself do not have any right and
title over the property, she is only a mortgagee.
29. Such, being the case, no right and title were
transferred to the purchaser under the various sale deeds
sought for cancellation and are not binding as prayed in
prayer B of the suit. Therefore, there is prima-facie case
made out by the plaintiffs in their case for the purpose of
granting the ad-interim temporary injunction against
defendants.
30. Hence, this Court do not find any error in the
order for setting aside the same. Accordingly, the appeal is
devoid of merits. The same is deserves to be dismissed.
31. For the aforesaid reasons, the following;
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9871
ORDER
I. The MFA.No.746/2025 filed by the appellants is
hereby dismissed.
II. The Writ Petition No.19009/2023 filed by the
petitioners is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
KJJ
CT:SI
