{"id":20640,"date":"2010-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-25T12:18:50","modified_gmt":"2016-04-25T06:48:50","slug":"sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar<\/div>\n
 \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 22% DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2o1 \"c:,\nBEFORE: 1' V' 1' '\n\nTI-IE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.   K  \n\nWrit Petition No. 13934 o\ufb01_2bO8';:31::\u00bb.E%::Rg\u00a7L DISTRICT  PETITIONERS\n\n' _ _  {By Sri M B Chandrachoocia, Adm}\n\n  T 'm1;.--STATE OF KARNATAKA\n\nV. '  INDUSTRIES AND\n=  COMMERCE DEPARTMENT\nVIDHANA souvm\nDR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI\nBANGALORE M 560 001\n\n\n\nBY ITS SECRETARY\nTO GOVERNMENT\n\nIx)\n\nTHE SPECIAL LAN D\n\nACQUISITION OFFICER\n\ni{.I.A.D.B..\n\nNO 3, 2\"?-3 CROSS,\n\nKHENY BUILDING,\n\n3\"\" FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR\nBANGALORE W 560 009   ._\n\n3. SR} ANJANAPPA\n\nS\/O APPAYANNA\n\nAGED ABOUT 68 YEARS \nR\/O THANISANDRA VILLAGE, \nKR. PURAM HOBLI I'\nBANGALORE SOU'i'H.. TALUK \n\n4. SRI SR1NIVASAMURTHY~ *_  1\nS\/OMUNIRAMAIAH Q \nAGED ABOUT -65  \u00ab  '  \nR\/O TI-IAN1SANDRA:vILLAGE-\u00ab.S * '\nK.R.PURA-M    \nBANGA;LOREVSGUTH     RESPONDENTS\n\n  s;I?N 8.3\/Iishava-_nath. AGA for R1:\n ' I' .:'\u20ac~ri BO1=S~_gOwda, Adv.. for\nSri\"I3aSa\\raraj\"If Sab-grad'. Adv, for R2; R3 -- Served]\n\nA.'-'HIS RETIVfIIO.N.'--Is\"RILEiD UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 22? OF\n\n '_ THE~E:ONS'IIjruT'IOIIQRINDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2. T0\nV IIOED AN EQNUIRY VVITH REGARD To DISBURSING OF\nCO1}\/_IPI33\\ISA_'fif\u00a7N_ OF' RS..I,24,00,000\/-- IN RESPECT OF\n\ns&'I.NOI.'40\/'pig; 'MEASURING 4 ACRES OF BANDIKODIGEHALLI\nvILI;'AGE,..__' J'A1.A HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TQ. VIDE ANN? AND\n\nT I =  :\"\u00a21*I~I1S PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, TRIS DAY, THE\n'  COURT MADE 'mI; FOLLOWING:w\n\n\n\n3\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Though the matter is posted for orders. with the
\nconsent of learned counsel for the parties, thse”*.mai1i1<\/p>\n
matter itself is taken up for disposal.<\/p>\n
2. Writ petitioners are persons who  <\/p>\n
heirs of one Muniramaiah who\ufb01is  l
\nclaim to be residents of VavasandrarVi’1lage,\u00bblv’ ;
\nHoskote Taluk, Bangalore   it<\/p>\n
3. Writ petitioners;=Tl–:”  claim to be<\/p>\n
khatedars in respect Vr3f~.1a:n_ds _me’as_u:rin’g’. an extent of 3<\/p>\n
acres in  P14 of Bandikodigehalli<\/p>\n
village, Jalg iHQbli,.l4l\u00a7anlg;1lore North Taluk, as ordered by<\/p>\n
 the..\u00abf\u00a7:}:ahisi.ldarl;i “Deyan.ahal1i Taluk in terms of the order<\/p>\n
 ‘bVeariVngi’_vN.o;IAiNI)_ ss 28′?\/60-61 dated 21.4.1962.<\/p>\n
4’ further version of the petitioners that their<\/p>\n
‘._father.. belonged to weaker section of the society and<\/p>\n
A  land had been granted to him free of cost, but had<\/p>\n
l  during his lifetime, in violation of the conditions of the<\/p>\n
 grant had sold it and the present writ petitioners, after the<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
demise of their father had petitioned the Assistant
\nCommissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka
\nScheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes [Proh.ibition. of
\nTransfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for   p\n<\/p>\n
5. The Assistant Commissioner.   ~
\nthe alienation in favour of respoiideritsf
\ndirected restoration of the in   if
\nrespondents 3 and 4 hayingpyp-re:ferre\u00bbd_an appealibefore the
\nDeputy Cornrnissioner’  matters were<\/p>\n
pending before-the ‘ztlie Act and inspite<\/p>\n
of  brought to the notice of
\nthe secondresporiden’t~._;”special land acquisition officer –<\/p>\n
KIADB. thell\u00e9seconci respofndent has nevertheless disbursed<\/p>\n
‘ pf coniplcnsation payable to the land owners of<\/p>\n
 which had come to be acquired for the<\/p>\n
purpose’ ofviforrnation of an industrial layout, at the behest<\/p>\n
 T’o_f Vthe..f{-arnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and<\/p>\n
 the basis of the noti\ufb01cations issued by the first<\/p>\n
  -“respondent — State of Karnataka; that the distribution of<\/p>\n
the compensation amount payable to the owners in lieu of<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
the acquisition of the subject }and in favour of
\nrespondents 3 and 4 by the second respondent” is an<\/p>\n
iliegal act; that the Writ petitioners have been ieft <\/p>\n
dry; that the action on the part of the second <\/p>\n
in disbursing the amount in fElVOU.JF~0.f_1″\u20acS}50I1vd\u20ac!%1tSx3_.E\u00a3.I1Ct_V4\u00bbu ‘<\/p>\n
even when their name did not’;t’1:g;ut”e i’n_A”the_ <\/p>\n
records on and after the proceedings” b__efore~.jthe\ufb01ssistant’<\/p>\n
Commissioner under the Act,anci”L_’in”t-his bacizgnjund, have
\napproached this court se’e_kin’g.fo\u00a7” th’eV:h.t’o.lL1″ounng reliefs:<\/p>\n
“ii issue \u00abA writ  nfiandarnus directing
\nresponde:1.t “No’.;_2 to _ hold Vcinenquiry with
\n:’regV{1rd” ” to d’isji:aurs__ing f ..compensation of<\/p>\n
VRs\u00a7V7.l_,24′,OO,(}OzO,’– in respect of Sy.<\/p>\n
-.No.40}’-P14N_rrieas’uring 4 acres of<\/p>\n
Bandi1c”adigre~haitt~*’ Village, Jala Hobli,
\n sBa!1gaiore. Nor_;’:h T aluk vide Annexure–P.<\/p>\n
  issue-Vdireetion to respondents 3 & 4 to
\n‘  “otepositmthe sum of Rs.1,24,00,000\/–
\n  ‘received from the 2nd respondent wide
\n Ann.exures N 52, N1 dated 21\/08\/2008<\/p>\n
‘V ‘ .”.”;;\u00a7g;;_fore this Hon’ble Court.<\/p>\n
iiif  issue direction to respondent No.2 to refer
\n” ” the matter to Civil Court ‘\/or adjudication
\nwith regard to the entitlement of
\ncompensation after depositing the
\ncompensation amount to the competent<\/p>\n
civil court.\n<\/p>\n
 H<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
to] issue any other appropriate writ, order or
\ndirection as deemed fit in the
\ncircumstcznces of the case including
\ninitiation of criminal action again’s_t”g
\nrespondents 2 to 4 before the corr:pe’ter:f’\u00ab.p
\ncourt of law.”  \u00ab   L’ <\/p>\n
6. This writ petition is iisted today beforeitjihe:’A–\u00a2:cinrt’
\norders regarding payment of    ‘
\nunserved fourth respondent
\nexamined on merits at the   counsel
\nfor the petitioners on that the
\npetitioners are not has is prayed for<\/p>\n
in the Writ  <\/p>\n
“F.    learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitionersi4″‘su_bn1itsAthatu the action on the part of the<\/p>\n
‘xi’~..seC’orid2;-respondent””is definitely an iliegal and arbitrary<\/p>\n
 e..a:otion;: and deceit are writ large on the face<\/p>\n
of A the  as the second respondent who had been<\/p>\n
 by the petitioners who had given representation<\/p>\n
  to ix\ufb01thhold the disbursement of the compensation amount<\/p>\n
h    favour of respondents 3 and 4, on the basis of the ciairn<\/p>\n
V put forth by the respondents 3 and 4, but the second<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent though had caused issue of notice to the
\npetitioners to hold an enquiry on this aspect of the matter,
\nhas nevertheless. given up the enquiry midstrearn
\ndeliberately and with an ulterior motive,
\nrights of the petitioners, has
\ncompensation amount in respect
\nfavour of the respondents’:_
\nbackground the petitioners   this court
\nand therefore the  will have to be<\/p>\n
allowed etc. ,.\n<\/p>\n
8. While’–  are blissfully silent,
\nperhaps .strategicall.ly_llso,:having received the compensation<\/p>\n
amount, whet,her.it vv’asl”due to them or otherwise, the first<\/p>\n
‘l V. “‘–res’pon(Lient– .5 Statelllilovernment is represented by Sri N B<\/p>\n
  leairned Additional Government Advocate and<\/p>\n
for’~-secondrespondent — Special Land Acquisition Officer,<\/p>\n
 Basavaraj V Sabarad, learned counsel has filed<\/p>\n
fptow-\u00a7i~ as per the directions of this court, but Sri<\/p>\n
 .~Bloregowda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri<\/p>\n
Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate for second respondent,<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
submits he is yet to receive instructions and the third
\nrespondent though had been served, has remained
\nunrepresented. it<\/p>\n
9. Sri N B Vishwanath, learned Additionai
\nAdvocate appearing for the first purespondcnti’~’.,\u00ab;\u00ab:’A’~\u00a7tatelofts
\nKarnataka, points out that the:=.c_second”i.:\u00a2as
\nacted with some bona fides the’-veryf
\nthe writ petition indicates  second had
\ntaken care to obtain  –f1_’0rn respondents<\/p>\n
3 and 4 thatfif it:-“is”-tov”bes..\u00a7nl’tirriately found that<\/p>\n
responidents’ aliejnot entitled for the amount and
\non the other A:_1petiti:o’11ers are entitled to the amount,<\/p>\n
then the corhpeiisation amount received from the second<\/p>\n
it it “‘respohdent”i’wil1  good in favour of the petitioners.<\/p>\n
it is the version on behalf of the<\/p>\n
respond_erit.s.}’ $ri M B Chandrachooda, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
:”thepppet’itioners, nevertheless, asserts and submits that<\/p>\n
 i._t’undert,aking of this nature is not an end for realizing the<\/p>\n
 rights of the petitioners, particularly a land owner who<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
has lost his land receiving the compensation payable in
\nrespect of the acquired land; that the second respgoiident,
\nin fact, cannot take shelter under the
\nsecond respondent either should have
\nto the civil court or should   it
\nwhich he had himself started. on
\nby the petitioners in ‘ the  notice dated
\n13.10.2008 issued   as other
\nrespondents by the specia1::l.ari.d  officer for their
\n  state of affairs, it
\nis obx\/19   had acted in a
\ncoilusivge  as sought for in the writ<\/p>\n
petition should be <\/p>\n
‘l V’ ‘=.1’l;’_\\~,,f1xfter”i’perusi1’ig”the petition pleadings and on hearing<\/p>\n
a…ieaarried:”~.eounse.l for the petitioners as well as learned<\/p>\n
cou.nsepl_.~fo_r4j’:ihe respondents 1 and 2, it becomes clear that<\/p>\n
  “virhile  petitioners may claim to be the legal heirs of one<\/p>\n
if ~.l\\\/iunuiramaiah, who according to the petitioners had been<\/p>\n
%   ….granted with some agricultural land as a person belonging<\/p>\n
to the weaker section or depressed class in the<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
community, it is nevertheless, submitted by Sri M B
\nChandrachooda, {earned Counsei for the petitioners that
\nthe appeal filed by the respondents 3 and 4 the
\norder passed by the Assistant Cornmissioneifgtinil
\nthe petitioners for setting aside lp
\neffected by the petitioners’ fathergin <\/p>\n
3 and 4, is still pendingfland
\nnamely, the Deputy  an order<\/p>\n
of status quo, While  <\/p>\n
12. If the app_r;a_l_ at tim\/i\u00a3istane,e  res.pondents 3 and 4<\/p>\n
is still tttt “before  Deputy Commissioner,
\nparticularly. inixolifiiigthelguestion as to whether the sale<\/p>\n
of land effe’eted..byA”‘thfe: petitioners’ father in favour of<\/p>\n
. _…,res”pondtents_3 andllllfcould be sustained or as has been<\/p>\n
Assistant Commissioner, to affirm that it is<\/p>\n
illegal sale: therefore purchasers do not get any right,<\/p>\n
  “title or interest and even when the rights of the parties has<\/p>\n
  r1:ot–},fe.t crystallized, this Court Cannot and will not embark<\/p>\n
ll  -on issuing a writ, either a writ of mandamus or a writ of<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
certiorari, on the basis of contingent rights of the Writ
\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
13. When there is a dispute in respect of  of
\nlands which were subject matter
\nproceedings, the provisions of section D,
\nAcquisition Act, 1894 takes care ”\n<\/p>\n
disputes and before a civil  W V W W W<\/p>\n
14. Writ jurisdiction;__ is  ‘appropriateremedy in
\nsuch situations as V _V the Karnataka<\/p>\n
Industriai Areas’   read with the<\/p>\n
provisions ofiithe-.I:;and’i.Acquisition Act, 1894 themselves,
\nprovide solutions  suichsituations. Writ jurisdiction is<\/p>\n
not..\u00abone’~where ” citizens can assert their ownership rights<\/p>\n
 \u00bbvvhe:r1 it is i\u00abn”‘di__spute and seek for relief by issue of a writ,<\/p>\n
‘e\\rpeii.iWheri.”p:theVVproperty rights are in dispute between such<\/p>\n
 petitionersv\u00e9i and other persons, whether arrayed as<\/p>\n
it ~rAesp\u00abopnd’ents to the writ petition or otherwise.<\/p>\n
 it While in this background, relief as sought for by the<\/p>\n
 petitioners cannot be granted in this writ petition, at the<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
same time. it cannot absolve respondents I and 2 from
\nthe consequences of a possible collusive or fraudulent act
\ncommitted by a public authority, more so, \\;\\url’ieliiu the
\nsecond respondent is in a fiduciary
\ncompensation payable to the land
\nsecond respondent, on his
\nrepresentation made by thelppetitioners
\nnotice for holding an   duty to
\nhave taken up the procee’din;t_\u00a7s  conclusion.<\/p>\n
16. Cornplaintaof   learned<\/p>\n
counseillfor”t]\ufb01Vfe’  ishlthlat the second respondent
\nwho had. himself of notice for holding such<\/p>\n
an en_quiryil”h.asVvirtually. abandoned the enquiry midway<\/p>\n
‘ i\u00e9vith a..pviexv”iio’lfavour respondents 3 and 4, has<\/p>\n
icol,l_11dscdV’~..with~_thern and has disbursed the amount to<\/p>\n
them to tlljelutmost detriment of wit petitioners and<\/p>\n
R”l”-9″therefore-l:’this aspect of the conduct of the respondents 1<\/p>\n
   cannot be overlooked.\n<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
17. While the question as to whether the second
\nrespondent had acted in a ma\ufb01a \ufb01de manner or in a
\ncollusive manner and had colluded with respondents 3
\nand 4 to the detriment of the petitioners is
\nwhich has to be necessarily examined
\npetition. it is not as though this
\narbitrary. erratic, Whimsica}’condnctpof
\nand more often than not,  iviiili\ufb02uenced
\nby corruption, nepoti–sri1_A   it is Very
\nnecessary for ‘this   commensurate
\nprocee dings       ‘ ‘enquiry agency and
\nwhich  the matters to their logical<\/p>\n
concIusion___an_dAltiiisfregard though Sri Boregowda,<\/p>\n
 Iearnfed counsel V-for the second respondent requests some<\/p>\n
 to._resp.or1vd on behalf of the second respondent. I am<\/p>\n
of   it is not necessary for this court to keep<\/p>\n
 this\u00e9\u00e9lrnalttyer on board any further only for such purpose,<\/p>\n
 i[_’butl’ocn the other hand. such aspect of the matter can be<\/p>\n
‘  taken care of by referring the question of illegal, malafide<\/p>\n
 or collusive conduct on the part of the second respondent<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
to the Karnataka Lokayukta for causing a further enquiry
\ninto this aspect to ascertain the bona fdesvpparidpp the
\nmanner of functioning of the second respondent’
\nmaterial is available indicating illegal.   d
\non the part of the second  i
\nthis writ petition, also to
\nup action as per law. ‘ it it it it i 1<\/p>\n
18. It has become  .thi,s court to issue
\ndirections for   are repeated<\/p>\n
allegations pers_oi1s holfdingg\ufb02the posts of special
\nland   thellliarnataka industrial Areas
\nDevelopinent  has come to the notice of this<\/p>\n
courttliat  the State. Government and the Board have<\/p>\n
‘”‘been iatitingopin a rnost arbitrary. erratic manner in the<\/p>\n
“ac:qi,!}isition of private lands, in the name of<\/p>\n
pt1bl,ic purpose and particularly in the name of developing<\/p>\n
 idindustr-‘ial areas etc., and such related aspects are being<\/p>\n
  eiiarriined by the Karnataka Lokayukta. it is therefore<\/p>\n
  -“appropriate that this matter is also further enquired into<\/p>\n
and examined by the Karnataka Lokayukta for<\/p>\n
1.5<\/p>\n
commensurate further action and also to enquire into the
\nmanner of functioning of the Board itself.<\/p>\n
\u00a39. Ordered accordingiy.\n<\/p>\n
20. Without prejudice to the <\/p>\n
available to the petitioners to izpursue  ‘<\/p>\n
remedies before any other fomim and in an:,\u00bb”other rriganneri.<\/p>\n
permitted and enabied in   \u00e9enerai of this
\ncourt is directed to    order along with
\nthe copies of thewrit lannexures to the
\nKarnataka    direction that the
\nmatter;_Am–ayA “enquired into at the Karnataka
\nLokayuirtaia :tc’_on’i.l111ensurate action is warranted<\/p>\n
agaiiist ‘the  respondent, to take it to its logical<\/p>\n
 conclusio.nva’s\u00bbper law.\n<\/p>\n
 these observations\/ directions and<\/p>\n
 reserving liberty to the petitioners, this writ petition is<\/p>\n
A V. :1′ V\u00bb dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/ –\n<\/p>\n
Judge<\/p>\n
_ AN\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar IN THE HIGH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22% DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2o1 “c:, BEFORE: 1′ V’ 1′ ‘ TI-IE I-ION’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. K Writ Petition No. 13934 o\ufb01_2bO8’;:31::\u00bb.E%::Rg\u00a7L DISTRICT PETITIONERS ‘ _ _ […]<\/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-20640","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 - 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\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-25T06:48:50+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-25T06:48:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2050,\"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\\\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-25T06:48:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 - 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\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-25T06:48:50+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-25T06:48:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010"},"wordCount":2050,"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\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010","name":"Sri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-25T06:48:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Ramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/20640","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=20640"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20640\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20640"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20640"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20640"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}