SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Kar) 212

High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench At Gulbarga)
D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.
Yadayya
Versus
The State of Karnataka represented by Deputy Commissioner & Others
Writ Petition No. 100708 of 2013 (LR-RES)
Decided on: 22-03-2013

Subject

Writ Petition - Challenging Order Under Karnataka Land Reforms Act

Act Referred

KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT : S.118, S.79(a), S.83, S.79(b)

Headnote

KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 - Sections 79-A, 79-B, 83 & 118: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar,J] Locus standi - Writ Petition challenging the order of Assistant Commissioner - Petitioner is the father of 3rd Respondent and not a party to the order of Assistant Commissioner - Neither the 3rd respondent nor the 4th respondent who suffered the adverse order had not questioned the same - Writ Petition dismissed without prejudice to the rights and remedies of the petitioner which can be availed of elsewhere in accordance with law.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:MD. Khadar Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Manavendra Reddy, Govt. Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sedam in exercising his power under Section 79 (a) and 79 (b) read with Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, -3-1961 (for short 'Act'), filed by a person who is not a party to the order, but claims that he is the father of the third respondent who was a party to the order.

2. In the first instance the writ petitioner questioning the order in writ jurisdiction is a little farfetched and more so, when the third respondent or even the fourth respondent who has suffered the adverse order has not questioned the same.

3. Be that as it may, even otherwise, the impugned order is appealable under Section 118 of the Act. Therefore, this writ petition is not entertained and the same is dismissed without prejudice to the rights and remedies of the petitioner, which can be availed of elsewhere, in accordance with law.



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top