Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19212 (KAR)

SRI T M RAJU v. SRI K DHARMA RAO

WP/47791/2016 · 2025-04-24

N S Sanjay Gowda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17009 WP No. 47791 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 47791 OF 2016 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. T.M. RAJU S/O LATE B. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT DEVANAHALLI FORT DEVANAHALLI POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-562110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. ANAND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K. DHARMA RAO SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SRI. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE K.DHARMA RAO 2. SMT. KAVITHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D/O LATE K. DHARMA RAO 3. SMT. GEETHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS D/O LATE K.DHARMA RAO ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.290 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17009 WP No. 47791 of 2016 2ND MAIN, 10TH CROSS VIJAYA BANK COLONY, BILEKAHALLI BENGALURU-560070. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 001. 5. SRI. S.V.SURESH MAJOR S/O LATE S.R.VENKATA KRISHNAIAH R/AT NO.1130, 12TH MAIN 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 038. 6. M/S SVR AROMATIC CHEMICALS PVT LTD NO.345, 9TH MAIN ROAD PEENYA II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 058. REPT BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.S.R.VENKATESH …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R4; SRI. AKASH P. HOTI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.5.2016 IN APPEAL NO.86/2006 ISSUED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17009 WP No. 47791 of 2016 ORAL ORDER 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned in W.P. No.47791 of 2016 is an order of remand. He submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, pursuant to the order of remand, the authority has passed a fresh order, which has been challenged in W.P. No.50190 of 2018. Consequently, the instant writ petition does not survive for consideration. 2. Submission is placed on record. 3. Accordingly, W.P. No.47791 of 2016 is dismissed as having become infructuous. 4. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92