High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr B Nanjunda vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 24 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mr B Nanjunda vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 24 June, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
passed by the 2M respondent, a copy of . which is

produced at Annexure ‘D’.

2. The main gievance of the petitioner
is that respondent No.2 has passed ‘_ ..
Annexure ‘D’ without notice to
that he was not even a pa1ty.*to__. ,
there is a clear violation of’

justice.

3. Mr.A.;.; V appearing

for the petitioner is not
the ownefiof mas’ much as a suit

for ‘c§_.eel.a.1’a!’:.io:2,. the petitioner has been

the matter went up to the Apex Court:

has confirmed the judgment and

k . decree of the Trial Court: holding that the petitioner is

W the Voemer of the property. Henm, the question of

_ a notice would not arise.

4. It is often said that before a person is hanged,

at’

he shouid be heard. Indeed that should be the fl

-4-

tenor of principles of naturai justice. Indeed it is to be
noticed that the petitioner was not a party :’
proceedings before the 2nd respondent. =
Annexure ‘A’ stems from the order»ipe_ssect it it

‘D’. The petitioner, in the circumstances oirg1it.to_

been heard for whatever it is been
done. Consequently,
(al Fe ”

(b)     consequential dis-
    A'  ismnexure 'A' stand
eqmed.:»i      

(c) ‘i’fie.. remitted to the 2nd
it flesh disposal in accordance
V. 47 H ‘vV’fi.it:Vr’i.V’i:$§’i..’
.’ as well as respondent No.3 shall
it ~ before respondent No.2 on 6th July

2009 and the 2″” respondent shall conclude

the procmdings on or before 318′ July 2009.

Rule is issued and made absolute. j/
Z

5. Misc.W.5483/2009 does not sL1rvive_…___for

considemtion, since the main petition itself is

of. Hence, Misc. w.5433/2009 stands disposga fig