Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25260 (KAR)

SRI M NARASIMHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/57743/2018 · 2025-04-04

S Sunil Dutt Yadav

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14420 WP No. 57743 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 57743 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M NARASIMHA S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BAGALURU VILLAGE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE -560 064 3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BAGALURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, JALA HOBLI, Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14420 WP No. 57743 of 2018 BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-562 149. 4. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT BAGALURU VILLAGE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE -562 149. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B J SOMAYAJI FOR R2 & R3; SRI K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 TO CANCEL THE KATHA NO.362 MEASURING 20 * 20 DTD 1.12.2018, VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner when the matter is called out. 2. This Court on 09.01.2025 had passed the following order: "Learned Counsel Sri B. J. Somayaji accepts notice for respondent no.3. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14420 WP No. 57743 of 2018 A week's time is granted to pay the process fee for effecting service of notice to respondent no.4. It is made clear that if process fee is not paid within a week, writ petition itself would be dismissed for default." 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that copies have not been served. 4. It appears that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the proceedings. Accordingly, petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP