- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12844 WP No. 57470 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 57470 OF 2015 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. RAVI POOJARY S/O SADHU POOJARY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ANDINJE VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574241. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K.DISTRICT-574241. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PUTTUR, D.K.DISTRICT-574201. 3. THE TAHSILDAR BELTHANGADY, D.K.DISTRICT-574241. 4. JAYACHANDRA S/O DHARMARAJ, MAJOR, AKSHATHA NILAYA ANDINJE VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574241. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SMT. JAYANTHI.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12844 WP No. 57470 of 2015 ORDER DATED:3.7.2015 PASSED BY THE R-1/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FILED AS ANNEXURE-A, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. An order of maintenance was passed in M.C. No.75/2003, M.C. No.280/2005 and M.C. No.69/2006 and M.C. No.370/2010, under which the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance. 2. However, the maintenance was not paid and proceedings were initiated for recovery of arrears of maintenance as arrears of land revenue. The Revenue Authorities accordingly initiated proceedings for disposing of the property of petitioner and conducted an auction on 18.06.2011 in which the respondent No.4 was the highest bidder at Rs.2,47,000/-. The said bid was accepted. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12844 WP No. 57470 of 2015 3. The Thasildar thereafter sought for confirmation of the bid to the Assistant Commissioner, but the Assistant Commissioner refused to confirm the sale and directed a re-auction and, as a consequence, the Deputy Commissioner preferred the petition. 4. Being aggrieved by this order, the auction purchasers preferred a second appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, who has accepted the appeal and has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and has confirmed the auction in favour of respondent No.4. 5. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to raise various technical grounds as to the manner in which the proceedings were conducted and contends that the auction was illegal and the confirmation of the bid was also illegal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12844 WP No. 57470 of 2015 7. In my view, these technical arguments cannot be considered, in the light of the fact that though the petitioner suffered the liability to pay maintenance way back in the year 2006, he has successfully managed to deny his liability to clear the arrears of maintenance and thereby deprived his wife and children to the benefits of the order of maintenance. 8. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, in my view, there is no justification to entertain the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 9. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42