High Court Karnataka High Court

Krishna Baba Pai vs State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Krishna Baba Pai vs State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil And Nagaraj
1 \V.A.NO.2%§fg{)05

1N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CHRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED was THE 13"' mv er: FEBRUARY, zoos 
:PRESENT:     
we HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PA]5i'l;:     % 
AND   " 

me uonms MR..:us1f1;:E APgAL! B£AG§;R;AJv = " 

WRIT APPEAL NO.  2m%5%(Csa.;§+Rg=§_)%  k
amwesm     

1. KRISHNA BABA PA: ~  ' _  .
3:0. LATE DR. BABA MALLAPPA PA! ' 1
AGEE{)ABOUT54YEARS   _
occ;AeR1cuL*ru:2éisT_ ; V    
R1o.GuD:GARcAL:;g-coutzr ROAD   
xumm-5s1«343'  'V ._ "   .
EJTTARA K.mNA_aAVn1s'r. .  *

APPELLANT

{By SrE.; suRE}%::>RA.v.K;a.MAi_H 'Agra SR}. vnss-awu BHAT ADVEDCATES}

 : .  "s's'A'39.é 01$ KARNAYAKA

 ' Rewemts PRINCIPAL SECRETARY T0 me
 mam QF 3-'£E€.E,hiUE
~. '\£§'DHAi%fi'§;--8C;§J'DHA
A , DR. Agaaasama VEEDH;
"aANRE .131

aspm €03msA%SS3GNER
~ : ._u"rraaA KAN-NADA ms':
' _ maawaa

'  3.A  ' 5i8TRfCT HEALTH AND FAWLY WELFARE OFFICER

UTTARA KANNAQA Dis"?
KARKNAR

" V -:1. AS$£S"§"ANT CGMWSSSONER

KUMTA SUB DEVISION
KEJMTA « 581 343



{NJ

W'A.NC).2909f2005

UTTARA KANNADA new
. RESPGNDENTS 

(S-RI. (LS. FATE AGA FQR R-1 TO 4)

THIS wm APPEAL :3 FiLEEE3 U13 4 0:: THE KAR.§é£sTAK§é' :  4_
comm ACT, PRAYENG TO 557 ASiDE THE ORBER PA$53ED__3i!*~1uT'HE: \.«:'s2:*§f "  "

PETITION NO,1'1?'2'f!20€35 DATED 25!05!'2005.    « A

THES w.A. CGMENG on FOR FINAL HE;ARIr-;G,..€'H:£5»ziavfie ;{;Vr%;='«créI:;:*,I1.T_:

.J., DELEVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: V V __   A
JUDGޣNT,r:

The appeliant, being  thfi 'tjrda-'2; dated
25*" May 2005 passed' ;in %;2oo5, has

presented this §.vriA'c{§'§spéAa!_ 3;  " 

2. ha*gAfiVé=far§§:'e.»€5f :ii*:e 'petitioner -appeilant in the

instant wrEf"'a_pp-ea?"  acres of !and in 8y.Nog605

 gf }(;,»;:i:1t a:__jA\s;i¥!;1gé'a~!hvn_g_Awith existing building was gifted by

 '--..Aofn,é}."$r§.~$3r§théppa Panduranga Pai in the year 1993 in

fa~§i:::;i't"%Aof §h é§'i_écvernment to use the same as bespitm.

 Kuzfita Municipafity has passed the resaiution on

'   903 1:63 the effect fiwai, if the property is net used for

h  purpase for which it is gifted, the same would be

 '  returned tn the famiiy of the danor. Due to hia necessity,

peiitiener who is the gr dssn of the dormer late Sri.

...,._.........»....,_»....__.....g



3 W.A.NO.29(}9f2{}05

Santhappa Pandurenga pal has filed his app§ioet__lon

before the second respondent to return  2

grantedlgifted by his grand father, to an

guntas, in View of the terms

resolution on 17.7.2003. The-‘ iifaid e”g}olioatloVn*’V*-hed 1

up for conelcleratien _v2″3’ on
1311922095 and the:.:”” rejected the
same, on the gregnd of land has
been utilieed§”‘tor:A::.th:§? for the Purpose

for whdleh 1 and therefore, no land is

available’ for cdesidier.irig_”hVle request vide endorsement

dated.’ 2 18!? 9.’2′;’2{)t)5.’v:Assailing the correctness of the

»e:aid.VVendoree’m_ent, petitioner has filed a writ petition

tbefa:<=eoteee in W.P.Ne-3t72'l!2005. The learned

dslnelle eludéige, after hearing both sides and efter

"«lf"_oo::1"s'i_dering the eriginel records available fife end the

hVt."—-."V'Leédmise§on made by the petitioner-appellant that

respondents are using the said land for treating leprosy

petienfe, has rejected the said writ petition. Aesaflewg the

Z-=—»-m-»~»»m-as-_..

S W.A.NO.29{)9!2005

appreciated by the learned Single Judge, after careful

evaluation of the material available on record.

epeeffic ground taken by the petitioner-e_p__;:e§lenffhelere K

the learned Single Judge that

shifted the hospltal to the nVew’_l_y ccineiructed’7l3eill:ellng_i’;ehdVii’.

the land to an extent of 20 veeent has
been turned down on the lrepugned
endorsement it ls is shifted
to new to treat the
petienl::hV’elJffer§hg; this fact has been
edmifleelréy the the respondents. in View

of the ~eate1_cj’o’rV.ilc§_al”‘ arimlssion made by the appellant

:’vr_’All:be.fe:’e_1lh.e:v:j*es__pondents that the land is now utrnsed

l1ler’.’treetlh’§.: lehvrosy patients which also come within

‘._the uearerh.eter ef the purpeee, for which, it has been

by the dener. Therefore, we do: not find any

greends to entertain this wet appeai and

” interference by this Court is uncalled for.

6 W.A.NO.2909s’2{)05

5. Having regard to the facts and circsumstances

the case as stated above, the instant writ apfieal ~

petitioner-appeilant is liable dismissed;as..misc§6fi§éii%ed}” V

Ordered accordingiy.

>rUDGE