Skip to content


H.L. Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of Mysore and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 2867 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1973Kant352; AIR1973Mys352
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantH.L. Srinivasa Rao
RespondentState of Mysore and anr.
Appellant AdvocateB.V. Balagi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateV.C. Brahmarayappa, H.C.G.P.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....determined by the court urging all kinds of untenable and frivolous grounds in this appeal which is most unfortunate on the part of the beneficiary university. appeal dismissed with costs of rs.25,000/-. .....of k. m. puttashamachar at an upset price subject to the reservation and recovery of value. 2. k. m. puttashamachar is none other than respondent no. 2 before us. the writ petition was presented to this court on 22-7-1970 nearly after seven years from the date of the order of grant. the petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he was not aware of the grant. 3. the averment made by the petitioner appears to be not correct. the petitioner was a shanbogue of the village and also a rival applicant to the said grant. he was signatory to the darkest prepared on the application of the second respondent. in view of these facts, we are unable to believe the petitioner. 4. the writ petition must, in our opinion, be dismissed for laches and it is accordingly dismissed. no costs.
Judgment:

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1. The order impugned in this petition was made by the Government of Mysore in their proceedings dated 7th December, 1963. By the said order, sanction was accorded to the appropriation of 0.31 guntas of lend within S. No. 59 of Honnarayanahalli village. Nelamangala Taluk, for cultivation purpose and to grant the same in favour of K. M. Puttashamachar at an upset price subject to the reservation and recovery of value.

2. K. M. Puttashamachar is none other than respondent No. 2 before us. The writ petition was presented to this Court on 22-7-1970 nearly after seven years from the date of the order of grant. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he was not aware of the grant.

3. The averment made by the petitioner appears to be not correct. The petitioner was a shanbogue of the village and also a rival applicant to the said grant. He was signatory to the darkest prepared on the application of the second respondent. In view of these facts, we are unable to believe the petitioner.

4. The writ petition must, in our opinion, be dismissed for laches and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //