{"id":191572,"date":"2009-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-08-16T01:35:38","modified_gmt":"2017-08-15T20:05:38","slug":"col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Col Srikrishna R Kolhatkar … vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Col Srikrishna R Kolhatkar … vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: N.Kumar &B.Sreenivase Gowda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA  'AT\nDHARWARD %% AA  % %  % ' . 2 \n\nDated this the 1\"     \nTHE HON'BLEufvi\u00a7.: ngs\ufb01cn\nVA  &  \nTHE HQ1\\z'BL13 MR.  GOWDA\n%  f %V .  \ufb012\u00ae3l (LR)\n\nCol. \"..  (Retired),\n\nSon ofiiaghunath'  \n\nAged abt:~b:t\"?1 year\u00a7',. \n\nResidem 0T~Kt1i}dgoi, Dha: ivad District.\n'   FA  -- Appellant\n\nL X  Lsm of Kamataka to be represented by its\n\n ASe'c1'etary, Deparunent of Revenue,\n\"  Buildings, Bangalore-560 O01.\n\n -  The Tahsildar, Kundgol-58}. 113,\n\nTaluk Ktmdgol, District Dharwad.\n\n' 3. The Assistant Commissioner,\n\nSavanur Sub Division, Savanna\",\n\nDistrict Dharwad (since abolished)\n\nNow coming under Assistant Commissioner,\n\nDhamrad Sub Divisiorz, Dharwad-580 091. \n\n\n\n4. Sri Maiiappa s\/0 Siddappa Mayannevar,\nAged about 73 years, Occ: Agriculturist\nRfa Pure-Kundgol--58\u00a7 133,\nKundgol Taiuk, Dharwad   \u00e9\n\nea. Sri Siddappa alias Ajjappa Maya11i:ev2ir,T \" \"\nS.\/e late Mallappa Mayannawpr,  \nAged about 35 years, rfo \nA1 and Post: Kundgol, Dha:'vu*edV'Dist. V\n\n5. Sri Basavannappa   --\nSince deceased by his 'LR   Q}   e --\n\n6. Sri Ramappzg Vsfe 'fvitayatxziasraf,\nAged about 4:;.yeazs;  'Ag\"~ie1i1ti1a:-ist..\u00a7\nR\/a P1;.\"a-.!{t;ri\u00e9g(;71-58._i._1;Ii3,   V '\n    \n\n ----  _     ' '  - Respondents\n(by Sri ESLB.  Ai-':A'for R} to R3,\nby Sri V.\"R. Dates', 13.\u00a3ijv,_Fer  '\nby Jayakumar S. Patil}\u00a2meocia_1ee for R5A,R6)\n\n This w\u00a7-i:.eAppea; gs \ufb02ied under Section 4 of the Karnataka High\n 'pre.ying't'e .se_t___eeide the order passed in the W1'. No. 3548\/1989\n\n%  \"da\u00a7ei127;;f'}'1'.2i}Q4\n\n  V'   coming for preiiminary hearing on this day,\n\n'SH N;3,'eidelive1*ed the feilowing judgtnent.\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
 *  ‘   appellant has challenged in Qis appeal, the order passed by the<\/p>\n
‘   Single Judge, who has set aside the order passed by the Assistaat<\/p>\n
“Commissioner as well as the Tahasiidar in a proceeding initiated under<\/p>\n
Section 15 of the Kamataka Land Reforms Act for surrender of the land by<\/p>\n
an Ex-Serviceman, in so far as grant of occupancy rights in res.p\u00e9cf”cf’ihe<\/p>\n
share of other members of the family of the appellant,<\/p>\n
2. The subject matter of this proceedixagiiis  <\/p>\n
aczes and 8 guntas and Sy. No. 74\/1 meastujing  22   \u00bb<\/p>\n
Put village, Taluk, Kuedgei, Dharwad Dietrie. It is me eeeemee that they
\nare the ancestral properties of  who  the year
\n1972 ieaizing behind his wife   them being the
\nappellant. The     and he retired in the
\nyear 2988. %%%% H<\/p>\n
3, The    iands in question were leased in
\nfavour ef ‘V to 1950 and his name has been
\n   He was recognized as an ordinazy tenant<\/p>\n
und\u00e9r– fhe Bombay Tenancy and Agicuitural Lands Act.<\/p>\n
 The app\u00e9llaxxt enaeree%T\u00a3ami1y members were residents of Bcigaum. In the<\/p>\n
_ ..  959 fhe a;;f:eIlm\ufb01’s father agreed to sel! the lands leased to Siddappa<\/p>\n
 Megeeeaee: for Rs. 12,000;-, A sum of Rs. 12209;- was paid. The<\/p>\n
 \ufb01ppcllmgzt and other children of Raghunath Kolhatkar refused ta) execute the<\/p>\n
 Deed. Therefore Siddappa Mayannavax \ufb01leti a suit in 0.8. No.<\/p>\n
1%\/,<\/p>\n
17! 1974 before the Civil Judge at Hubli for specific perfermance; ‘Stilt
\ncame to be dismissed on the ground that it was a
\n01.03.1974, it vested with the State and therefoife’ no”
\nperfonnazzce could be granted. It: the said
\neontended that the lands in question ief\ufb01fiointii   L’
\nfather had no authority to execute the:    it is not
\nbinding on them. It is   efrplication in form no.<\/p>\n
7 for grant of occupaeeyifiglits.   7 was rejected on
\nthe ground that to  preferred W.P. No.
\n7i2fl978 which  by setting aside the order of the
\nLand Tribune!  back for \ufb01es}; consideration.<\/p>\n
eflggain byedated  the Tribunal rejected Form No. 7 against<\/p>\n
eee  zsiegzoevs\/1979 was \ufb01led which was allowed by order dated<\/p>\n
 \u00bb.  20.021   the matter for \ufb02esh consideration.<\/p>\n
  .V in  \ufb01ieaevefhile the proceedings were initiated under Section 15 of<\/p>\n
 Refonns Aet by the appellant for resumption of the<\/p>\n
  the ground that he is an Ex-Serviceman and he is entitled for<\/p>\n
 The Tahasildax after enquiry by order dated 11.05.1984<\/p>\n
  accepted the case of the appellant direct resumption of land and eviction of
\n1\/<\/p>\n
tenant. Against the said order the tenant preferred
\nAssistant Commissioner which came to be    i
\nsaid order was challenged before thisVCo4tnt  Nod\u00bb. L\u00bb
\n18.03.1989 possession of the lands
\nHowever by an order Sy. No.   to be in the
\npossession of the landlord   74\/1 was takm
\nback by the   same to the tenants.<\/p>\n
Ultimately   i2l1.04. 1989. The said order<\/p>\n
was challenged    was allowed on 04.01.1991<\/p>\n
remitting the itiietteribeciz to Single Judge for decision on merits.<\/p>\n
 \u00a7.if{6I’ suehireinanditlie. “order is passed setting aside the order of<\/p>\n
unwell as the Assistant Commissioner on the gonad that<\/p>\n
 2 _  ‘vriotiiij’eeorded the \ufb01ndings that whether the lands in question<\/p>\n
 i absolutely  to the appellant or it is a joint family property.<\/p>\n
\u00ab  V  While making remand, as the fact that the appellant was an Ex-<\/p>\n
 sssseman was not in dispute and he had made an application for<\/p>\n
“”ri$tiihption, the resumption of land in so far as the appellant is eeneeroed,<\/p>\n
ii ii.e.,ihis share is not disturbed. The remand order is elear that the authorities<\/p>\n
have to find out whether other family members have a right in the ww\ufb02
\n\/”‘\/H<\/p>\n
or they have relinquished their right in favour of the appellant, <\/p>\n
he is entitled for resumption of the entire land. Aggieved by;ti*’1’ei   _<\/p>\n
the appellant is before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
4. Sri PA Kulkami, learned counsel for.Vthei_iaiipellarit <\/p>\n
impugned order contends the material  elearly  the” i<\/p>\n
name of the appellant alone was.’ entered iii’-thei.reveziee’~reeords. It is
\nbecause, the other members in   -rurangernent, have
\nrelinquished their in the   Secondly he
\ncontends the other;  was made by
\nother rrzembeis,   for resumption. When the
\nresumption orderiwes   contested, the matter went upto
\nSepreane   has accepted the case of authorities and<\/p>\n
order4.lresumption. Lastly he contended when possession of<\/p>\n
  Vsy. Not it\/3’%i   to the appellant as far back as on 19.03.1989<\/p>\n
ife._\u00ab.andVhe isuiirz. eontiziuous possession for the last 25 years he cannot be<\/p>\n
 point of time. Therefore he contends the learned Single<\/p>\n
sliuefgeeas is justified in holding that the material arid the \ufb01nding of the<\/p>\n
it i   do not conclusively establish that the property exclusively<\/p>\n
 lifbelongs to the appellant and an enquiry in this regani is required.<\/p>\n
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents en<\/p>\n
earlier civil proceedings in (3.8. No. 71\/1974 the  4′<\/p>\n
contended that the agreement of sale executed’ by\u00e9hisui  ‘ 1. <\/p>\n
joint family property is not binding on thein ‘is is
\ncontend that he has beearne absolute’–oiVner ziiidV.thei:eiii.jre”‘~~he”‘s:1hn1it’1ed i
\norder of in\u00bb. learned Single .I;1dge\u00e9..lis’ –ii_:ro;\u00a7erd…andii idoes..~not call for<\/p>\n
interference.\n<\/p>\n
6. From the afoi5esai\u00a7i’l’inateiiaf zitis \u00a2i\u00a2e:’L5eiand bearing Sy. No. 73\/1
\nand 74:1 oaigiiialiiifrwasl The father of the 4*”
\nrespondent    the land even prior to 1950’s. Their<\/p>\n
name \ufb01ndpvlaceiin  feeords. The agreement of sale executed<\/p>\n
 iiEsy.1;he afi\ufb01*ell_ent’s fathei inhisifavour is not in dispute. The suit for specific<\/p>\n
to be dismissed on the gound that tenanted land vested<\/p>\n
   with ‘the  and therefore cannot be decreed. in the said<\/p>\n
~  appellant has speci\ufb01cally contended that the said property<\/p>\n
i    property. They are not parties to the ageement of sale.<\/p>\n
V    father had no authority to bind their interest. 1: is after that stand a\ufb01er<\/p>\n
   iiiI.03.l9’74 the present proceedings were initiated for resumption of the<\/p>\n
land on the gonad that he is an Ex-Serviceman for whom the Act extends<\/p>\n
bene\ufb01t. The benefit of resumption is given to an Ex Serviceman. It is also
\nextended on his death to his legal heirs but the bene\ufb01t of resuntpiipeepis not<\/p>\n
extended to the joint family of Ex-Serviceman consisting <\/p>\n
and father. Therefore when an application for resumptioiitljiswp  <\/p>\n
he is ezztitled to resumption of the entire  oi’  T.
\nhe is the absolute owner of the said”  oreiei _v
\npresupposes that the applicant is the     contends
\nthat it is a joint family  leaseil the property to
\nthem, the aethority under the     enquiry and find out<\/p>\n
first Whethte the –tlVle~\u00abi.’e_bsolt1tei owner of the land or property<\/p>\n
belongs to the ggtttttpfantily   holds that the applicant is the absolute<\/p>\n
owner thee  the 0i1ftv’ieI”ii0ft4?E’:StJtt11;)iliO1t to the entire extent of land sheuld<\/p>\n
  7. ii Itiithei  ease it is not in dispute that the appellant is an ex<\/p>\n
  lift; is also not in dispute that he has a share in the property as 3.<\/p>\n
i  the joint family. Therefore rightly the authorities as well as the<\/p>\n
it’   leereed single Judge were justified in ordering fer resumption of the land to<\/p>\n
   extent of appellanfs share in the property in dispute. But without<\/p>\n
i’ recordiflg a finding based on legal evidence the authorities could not have<\/p>\n
V.\n<\/p>\n
ordered for resumption of the entire extent of land.
\nwhich reliance is based show that he is the habsolnte   ” .
\nrelinquishment pleaded is legal and valid, Viwlaetlterl itie
\nproperty, in the joint family there  tee mg l
\narrangement they have relinquished   of tlt-\ufb01e appellant<\/p>\n
is a matter which requires to   before
\nordering for resurnption  \ufb01re perusal of order<\/p>\n
by the Tahasildar   am indicate application<\/p>\n
of mind by {nose  Therefore the learned Single
\nJudge was in  order and remanding the matter only<\/p>\n
\u00a3otl1e extent or share er  njember of the family for gant of occupancy<\/p>\n
 iteleer in so far as the appellant is eeneemed the order ef<\/p>\n
 _ L  ta” ~_exte;E1’t”of his share remains undisturbed.<\/p>\n
  ~V Inlulour i=le1=\u00a7* the approach of the learned Single Judge is proper and<\/p>\n
.  ec\ufb01litebleo and tree do not find any reasons to interfere with the said order. In<\/p>\n
 _th.e.~preeeedn1gs there is an interim order in which the entire Sy. No. 73\/} is<\/p>\n
 ‘  to the custody of the appellant and Sy. No. 7411 entire extent was<\/p>\n
  gt\/en to the custody of the 43’ respondent and new they are enjoying the<\/p>\n
property. It is also made clear till the enquiry is concluded the partim shall<\/p>\n
153\/\/..\n<\/p>\n
maintain status quo in so far as possession of Sy. No. 73\/’ I atgd  1<\/p>\n
is concerned as per the earlier order passed by this we <\/p>\n
the following order.\n<\/p>\n
Order<\/p>\n
a) The appeal is allowed in part. V 4′  __ <\/p>\n
b) The order of remand  byfh.’e”   J\ufb01dge is af\ufb01xmed
\nwith the modi\ufb01cation  back to the
\nTahasildar for  with law.\n<\/p>\n
o) It is     ' passed in favour of the\nto    undisturbed.\n\nd) The  as far as Sy. No. 73\/1 and Sy.\n<\/pre>\n
No. V’_’\/’3f2  of the earlier interim order referred<\/p>\n
Sd\/~
\nJUDGE<\/p>\n
sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n
‘% e W<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Col Srikrishna R Kolhatkar … vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2009 Author: N.Kumar &B.Sreenivase Gowda IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA ‘AT DHARWARD %% AA % % % ‘ . 2 Dated this the 1″ THE HON’BLEufvi\u00a7.: ngs\ufb01cn VA & THE HQ1\\z’BL13 MR. GOWDA % f %V . \ufb012\u00ae3l (LR) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCol Srikrishna R Kolhatkar ... vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Col Srikrishna R Kolhatkar ... vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-15T20:05:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Col Srikrishna R Kolhatkar … vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-15T20:05:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1466,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Col Srikrishna R Kolhatkar ... vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-15T20:05:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Col Srikrishna R Kolhatkar … vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Col Srikrishna R Kolhatkar ... vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Col Srikrishna R Kolhatkar ... vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-15T20:05:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Col Srikrishna R Kolhatkar … vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-15T20:05:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009"},"wordCount":1466,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009","name":"Col Srikrishna R Kolhatkar ... vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-15T20:05:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/col-srikrishna-r-kolhatkar-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Col Srikrishna R Kolhatkar … vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191572","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=191572"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191572\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}