{"id":207453,"date":"2010-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010"},"modified":"2014-01-23T20:20:08","modified_gmt":"2014-01-23T14:50:08","slug":"p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"P Puttaraju vs Chief Officer on 23 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
P Puttaraju vs Chief Officer on 23 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nTHE HONBLE MR. -JUSTICE ATsHOK\u00a2BT.; \n\nDATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER\u00bb.\n\nBEFORE\n\nWRIT PETITION NOS.29365-318?'  %20Os} [LB;.R%1:g1O}% \" \n\nBETWEEN\n\n1\n\nP.PU'I'I'ARAJU  T. .\nS\/O PUTTASWAMYO  * \n\nAGED ABOUT 46  jy\n\nR\/O TRIV:;N1NAGAR\"V.; _  - \nT.NARA51PT;pA TALLIEK\"  _ \n 'V      .\nMYSORED1sTR1cf1'*--.'jj  '  \n\nN'.MAiIAL)EVAf '  .\n -\nAGEI) ABO U\u00abT'~35' YEARS\nR\/O._IN'DIRP~.-- COLONY.\nT.NARA.S1PURA TOWN\n\n; '1'.NARAS'IPURA TALUK\n '~'e.1v1\u00a7(sO_R1a: DISTRICT\n\n .. V  MARINAIKA\n\nAGED' ABOUT 41 YEARS\n\n'. '-\u00abR\/O --NAYAi{ARA BEEDI\n\nA  T. NARASIPURA TOWN\n\n NARASEPURA TALUK\nMYSORE DISTRICT\n\n' TB.PUTTARAJU\nS\/O BASAVANNA\n\nAGED ABOUT 50 YEARS\nR\/O NANJUNGUD ROAD\nT. NARASEPURA\n\nMYSOREJ DESTRECT\n\n\n\nRAMARAJ URS\n\nAGED ABOUT 60 YEARS\nR\/O INDIRA COLONY\nTNARASIPURA\n\nMYSORE DISTRICT\n\nSAKAMMA\n\nC \/O APPALAIAH\n\nAGED ABOUT 50 YEARS\nVINAYAKA COLONY\nTNARASIPURA\n\nMY SORE DISTRICT\n\nSANJEEVARAJE URS\n\nAGED ABOUT 75 YEARS  I\n\nR\/O INDIRA COLONY\nTNARASIPURA V _  5\nMYSORE DISTRICT.  --\n\nv.MAOAPPA.   - if\nS\/O LATE 'XZENKA'i'ALM:i\n\nAGED A1BOiJ'T_5]_ YEARS  ;.  \n\n  \n\n    ._\nMYSORE D_ISTP.IC\"1'__\u00ab_  ~ . \n\nD.PANDURA:\\';--GA=_sE'\u00a341Y\n\n4 ; AGED ABOUT' 45 \"YEARS\n._  ' <R_\/._Q REDDY 'COLONY\nT. NARAs_1PURA\n\nI " \u00bb .';f)1sTRIcT\n\n10%\n\n Ac;ED.ABOU'1' 41 YEARS\n\nVINAYAKA COLONY\n'I'.N.ARASIPURA\n\n" *  AMYSORE DISTRICT\n\nYSHARADAMMA\n\nAGED ABOUT 35 YEARS\nR\/O INDIRA COLONY\nTNARASIPURA TALUK\nMYSORE DISTRICT\n\n\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\nI6\n\nKULLA @ {KRISHNA}\nAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS\nR\/O INDIRA COLONY\nTNARASIPURA\nMYSORE DISTRICT\n\nNINGANNA J _\nAGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ' "\nR\/O VINAYAKA COLONY\n\nT. NARASIPURA TALUK V\n\nMYSORE DISTRICT *\n\nSHASI-IIKALA\nw\/O PRAKASH  \nAGED ABOUT SSYEARS  A .\nR\/O SRIRAMPURA' BEEDI  \nTNARASIPURA  I\nMYSORE I)I:'f\u00ab.TRICT  \n\n '    \nAGED _ABO_I.IT 40 YEARS" \nHEII4\ufb01V}% R.A. *E_12ED_I' ' I\nNARASVIPURA TALUK\nMYSORE D?53_'R,1.C"I*.__ --. ' '\n\nm,YI~MwA     \nAGED "ABOU'I.'- 40*_YEARS\n\n_; R\/O INDIRA. COLONY\n.f__'\u00b0T.;NAI?ASIPURA"TALUK\n\nIVIYSORB2._ DISTRICT\n\n_  \n W\/O' SEIF\\\/ASWAl\\\/IY\n\nA  AGEDABOUT 60 YEARS\n\nR\/O T. NARASIPURA TOWN & TALUK\n\n I _ MIISORE DISTRICT\n\n. SASAVARAJU\n\nS\/O LATE APPAIAH SETTY\nAGED ABOUT 70 YEARS\nR\/O TRIVENINAGAR\nTNARASIPURA TALUK\nMYSORE DISTR!CT\n\n\n\n19 SCIRISI-\u00abI\n\nS\/O LATE SIDDANARAYANA\n\nAGED ABOUT 35 YEARS\n\nNo.52.-3, SRERAMPURA BEEDHI\nTNARASIPURA TOWN 8: TALUK\n\nMYSORE DISTRICT\n\n20 SWAMY\n\nS\/O CHINNASWAMI\n\nAGED ABOUT 30 YEARS    v ~\nR\/O SRIRAMAPURA EEEDHI, NO_.522  " *\nTNARASIPURA TOWN 3: ' --\nMYSORE DISTRICT ' _\n\n21 KUMAR   ._\nS\/O KALA NAIAKA' 'I   \nAGED ABOUT 35 YEARS;_ .,\nNARAYANAi3EEI\u00a7IHI"'~\u00ab _  \nT. NARASIIJ'IIIIt~:A TC)WN''TALUK'-- " \nMYSORI53IDISiffRICT._4_ I'   \u00bb  PETITIONERS\n\n ..  R  ADv., I\nAND:  I I I I  I\nCHIEF OFFICER  .\n\nTOWN _RANC'IIA&'IAf1*I\u00bbI O_FF'1CE\nT.NA_RASIPURA  V\n\n *  _MY-SORE.AD}ISTRICT"' ----   RESPONDENT\n\n'  A';  .  B NARAYANA, ADV., FOR C\/R)\n\n TIRIESE WRIT PETITONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE\n\n226 ANDj_227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING\n  TOCIQUASH THE RESOLUTION DATED 11.9.09, PASSED BY\n"R1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE--D AND ETC.\n\nTHESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR\n\n "PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE\n' THE ROLLOWINO:\n\n\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
The petitioners have called into quest,iVon\ufb02”.th.e<\/p>\n
resolution, dated 11.9.2009 (.Annexure-D}   <\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
2. The facts of the ‘case in 0hriefiV’VarLgu.thVat.’3 the <\/p>\n
petitioners are the lessees _:sv:eAvevi?a1 shop
\nunits in the commercial’0–.co%n’ip0i’e\u00a7\u00a7’:.:be,1onging to the
\nrespondent. Finding”  in a
\ndilapidated    resolved to
\n ” :’f:’he,:iresp0ndent made the
\npetitioners “shop units assuring that they<\/p>\n
would be V’i*e4–acco’inn1odat.ed on the reconstruction of the<\/p>\n
 shopping corrip1ev,~:,_ _____ “In this regard, the respondent has<\/p>\n
  an agreement, dated 14.3.2005<\/p>\n
{2iri_th the petitioners and twelve other<\/p>\n
 simiiarlfplaced occupants of the shop units. On the<\/p>\n
 “..js*.co1n’p1Aeti’on of the reconstruction, the petitioners<\/p>\n
 agitated their right of re–entry. On the respondent<\/p>\n
“showing inaction in the matter, they filed<\/p>\n
W.P.Nos.2513525157\/2009, which were disposed of by
\n\ufb01g\ufb01iei;\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
this Court. by its order, dated 25.8.2009 directing the
\nrespondent to consider the cases of the petiti4o_n:ergs~.V’in<\/p>\n
accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
3. The respondent, Vide its resoiuitioniii dated -. r <\/p>\n
11.9.2009 {Annexure\u00ab~D] decided<\/p>\n
in the new shopping complex Vby’\u00b0hold;ing_: <\/p>\n
auction. The resolution more funds
\nare required for tidirig..V:’o\\_rge’rg   difficulties of
\nthe respondents It   earlier lease
\nagreement  the petitioners
\nare not  resolution, which is being
\nassailed’     Hudlamane, the learned<\/p>\n
counsei*.for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00bb.4\u00b05~r:i:’_j..Hegde I-Iudlamane submits that the<\/p>\n
petitione~rs’\u00a3’..–have voluntarily vacated the shop units<\/p>\n
 based  the agreement entered into between the<\/p>\n
 –,.re–spuondent and the petitioners and others. He further<\/p>\n
 …_submits that the said agreement is not against any<\/p>\n
public policy and is not opposed to law. He brings to<\/p>\n
my notice that the agreement provides for the fixing of<\/p>\n
\ufb01\ufb01iri<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
the necessary rent and the tax. He further su.bmit_s___ that<\/p>\n
the petitioners are also willing and ready to <\/p>\n
reasonably enhanced rent.\n<\/p>\n
5. The learned counsel ifeliescoin th’e._dec1sioh<\/p>\n
this Court in the case___  <\/p>\n
SUBHANRAO NALAWADE V; “l HASANALI
\nMAKANI AND oTH1a1.ij:3,g  ._AIR 1992 so
\n1780. He read out the-pp-ortion pg-15in:  Head Note [ ),<\/p>\n
which is ext_r\u00a31cte\u00a7it’hereini:~e1o\\\u00a7J: -if . l <\/p>\n
“In pi.::rs-uance”  compromise reached
\n ‘ landlord the possession of
\n  over to the landlord on
\nthe enrpressvlstipulations that on the construction of<\/p>\n
5 the new  the tenant would get an identical<\/p>\n
A  \u00a7her\u00e9fn;” “””  The fresh construction was
\n .iVcorry:2leted __but instead of honouring the pledge
\n landlord in the form of an
\n “un.dert’alang” he inducted third persons therein<\/p>\n
up andg_did not make any ojfer to the tenant or after
\nV * r 4_  death to his heir until the matter reached the
\nV’ v ..nHigh Court on the second occasion and the writ
\npetitions filed by third parties were being argued
\nafter the lapse of about 24 years. In the
\ncircumstances there can be no conceivable reason<\/p>\n
to condemn the tenant for her insistence for the<\/p>\n
\u00a33}-A<\/p>\n
benefits under the consent decree or for any
\nsympathy with the landlord or the third
\ninducted by landlord. The landlord mast be  A’
\nliable for making his undertaking good as:<\/p>\n
for any suitable compensaiiontfor the  <\/p>\n
of more than two decades<\/p>\n
6. Sri H.B.Narayana.,:VV:”‘the
\nappearing for the .  that the
\nrelationship between   petitioners
\nis that of 1icei1’s:orI”a11li._  have no
\nvested  of the shop units.\n<\/p>\n
He  at AnneXure–A is
\noPDOsecl=  ‘Rule 39 of the Karnataka<\/p>\n
Municipalities[Gnidance of Officers, Grant of Copies<\/p>\n
‘l V. \u00b0and’=I\\lli\u00e9-scellvaneousWlllrovisions} Rules 1966 (‘1966 Rules’<\/p>\n
“the_l~shop units cannot be leased without<\/p>\n
holclillg auction. The provisions of Rule 39 of<\/p>\n
  Flules are extracted hereinbel0w:–<\/p>\n
“39. Procedure in respect of lease. sale
\nor auction:- Save as otherwise provided in the Act”
\nor rules, when the Municipal Council proposes to<\/p>\n
lease. sell or auction any moveable or immovable<\/p>\n
Qi\ufb01li;\n<\/p>\n
property, it shaii give notice of such lease, sale or
\nauction by\u00ab VV
\n{U affixing copies thereof on the noiice..boot\ufb01d:”‘ij* ”
\nOf the Of\ufb01ces Of the Municiptll Counc\ufb02g’ V  ”  3<\/p>\n
(ii) exhibiting copies ther’eoj”i.n, an <\/p>\n
reading rooms and places  by  V<\/p>\n
M an icipai Council ii i”o__ be conspicuoiis A._:w.itHhVin3
\nthe Municipality; ‘V b V’ ‘V V’ 1\n<\/p>\n
(iii) publication inia neiospaper having
\nwide circulation iuiihin 1ihe\u00ab.M”u.n~ic_ipaiity;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) “by.:beai:–of \u00e9:ir’iim’o:::ciicu\u00a3siiion of notice in
\n K    V
\n7} : ‘SriV’V’Na1fa3rai1.a””submits that this Rule is<\/p>\n
c0InpIimef1t_4aI3.r Vb’to4VK_Sec.Iiion 72 of the Karnataka<\/p>\n
 Mu_n:icip_aliiiesb “‘\u00a3A’;<..'..fC,,__..v 1964, which deals with the<\/p>\n
 the Municipal Council to lease, sell and<\/p>\n
contract bits? 'pfoperties.\n<\/p>\n
 A.  L The learned counsel has also relied on the<\/p>\n
  decisions of this Court in the case of SHABEER AHMED<\/p>\n
\u00b0   TOWN MUNICIPALITY, BANTWALA AND ANOTHER<\/p>\n
passed on 15.7.2008 in W.P.No.3714\/2008 (LB-RES),<\/p>\n
\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7”!:\n<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
and of MORAN P. SONU V. STATE OF <\/p>\n
AND OTHERS, reported in 1992(2) Kar.L.J. 245i4{ois;<}.f–teg'<\/p>\n
9. The decision in the case of    b <\/p>\n
(supra) has no application for the facts)of_tliis–.case,_llZn <\/p>\n
the said case, Shabeer himself haduV_pa,rtic:pla;i\u00e9a_’m f;t;1\ufb01e f,<\/p>\n
earlier public auction. In the  caseititnjis nobody’s
\ncase that the petitionei’_sfhaxie e_oine_’through the auction<\/p>\n
route.    _  ‘<\/p>\n
10. VMOHAN P. SONU v.\n<\/p>\n
STATI;’f “&”‘oTHERs, reported in
\n1 992(2) — .’    marginal land measuring<\/p>\n
5′ XV50′  soidA”vto””‘the adjoining owner without<\/p>\n
  requirements of public law.\n<\/p>\n
  4lthe’_j.purchaser in the case of Mohan Sonu<\/p>\n
(supra)  not in possession of the marginal lands<\/p>\n
  “before Municipality soid it.\n<\/p>\n
“All. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that<\/p>\n
”  petitioners are smaliwtimers and that they have been<\/p>\n
in possession of the shop units for a long period of 20<\/p>\n
years from 1985 to 2005. Whether they should have
\n\u00a7i\u00a7%i.\n<\/p>\n
1.1<\/p>\n
been given the shop units in 1985 without observing the<\/p>\n
requirement of public law is not the issue beforel”ni’e,g:””,It<\/p>\n
is not known why the respondent did not  <\/p>\n
public auction for allotting the-“”sh–op <\/p>\n
Having not chosen to do so, the re~sp’o_nxdent’has  ~_<\/p>\n
the settled position of the “for   it<\/p>\n
12. Further,  exercised the
\noption of term1’r.1atir1g:.t~he_:l’eas\u00a2j.,9r.l.Iicence, as the case
\nmay be.   that, then the
\npetitioners It   V tenants holding over
\nliable  belease period is over or the
\ntenancyagrgeernentlllhasli it is always open to the<\/p>\n
respondent ei’th._er to: institute the suits against the<\/p>\n
 petitioners-.o1=._to evict them taking recourse to the<\/p>\n
proV*ision’:ff’_”Contained in Public Premises (Eviction of<\/p>\n
V -V Unaut.horised Occupants) Act, 1974.<\/p>\n
it *   When the building had to be reconstructed in<\/p>\n
 .,2_0lO5, the respondent persuaded the petitioners to<\/p>\n
“llvacate the shop units with the assurance that they<\/p>\n
would be rewaccommodated in the reconstructed<\/p>\n
\ufb01\ufb01ii.\n<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
building. I am afraid, the respondent cannot resile___from<\/p>\n
the assurance. The petitioners cannot be pena1is.e_d.V’i”or<\/p>\n
acting on the assurance given by the V’<\/p>\n
Having aroused their legitimate\u00bb’exp.ectatio\ufb01=thatthey.’<\/p>\n
would get the re–entry in the  <\/p>\n
building, the respondent is yjustiliied’ in jnov-Jwturlning it<\/p>\n
around and saying that the assu’i”ancellgive-ii by the
\nrespondent is not   ‘vagreeinent is<\/p>\n
contrary to lawn; “_~_<\/p>\n
14.  r;easlon”V respondent in the
\nresolution that’.th,e”relsplondent has to auction the shop
\nunits to enable itself over the \ufb01nancial dif\ufb01cuities<\/p>\n
is nci\ufb01lground xfor,lgoin_g back on the assurance held out<\/p>\n
  ‘Apetvitioners. Further, the agreement itself<\/p>\n
 thelllfixation of proper rent and property tax.<\/p>\n
‘V Theta petitioners have also shown their bonafides by<\/p>\n
 ..agreeing to pay the reasonably enhanced rents. It is for<\/p>\n
  respondent and the petitioners to negotiate and<\/p>\n
it “arrive at upper revision of the rate of rent and the tax.<\/p>\n
\u00a7\ufb01\u00a7~\u00a7.\n<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
15. The position taken by the resp0ndent__.in its<\/p>\n
statement of objections that the petitioners may<\/p>\n
approach the Civil Court and seek the   <\/p>\n
unfortunate, to say the least-;””Thpe its<\/p>\n
instrurnentaiities have to act fairijg and” <\/p>\n
They have to be model land  or ‘ease it<\/p>\n
may be.<\/p>\n
\n\n16. For ailvthei hold that the\nimpugned   I quash it. 1\ndirect    the case of the\n<\/pre>\n
petitioners the shop units in the letter
\nand  14.3.2005 (AnneXure–\n<\/p>\n
A). ,,.f%Ifherr.1ibertyV.is:HeXpress1y reserved to the respondent<\/p>\n
   rate of rent and the property tax Within<\/p>\n
 of its perception of What is reasonable<\/p>\n
‘V and.uaft’er negotiating with the petitioners. Liberty is<\/p>\n
 reserved to the respondent to terminate the<\/p>\n
‘  1Ai’een’ee\/ lease, if it is otherwise open to the respondent to<\/p>\n
 so and for the right and valid reasons. If the<\/p>\n
respondent exercises these liberties, then the<\/p>\n
\ufb01g\ufb01<\/p>\n
I4<\/p>\n
respondent is obliged to hold the public auction and<\/p>\n
thereafter allot the shop units. On the expiry vcfthe<\/p>\n
lease period or termination of licence, if the-:’pi\u00a7ib.Iic<\/p>\n
auction is to be held, it is also open to the petiti.onet’sA  <\/p>\n
take part in the same.\n<\/p>\n
193 These petitions are <\/p>\n
order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court P Puttaraju vs Chief Officer on 23 September, 2010 Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri IN THE HIGH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE HONBLE MR. -JUSTICE ATsHOK\u00a2BT.; DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER\u00bb. BEFORE WRIT PETITION NOS.29365-318?’ %20Os} [LB;.R%1:g1O}% ” BETWEEN 1 P.PU’I’I’ARAJU T. . S\/O PUTTASWAMYO * AGED ABOUT 46 jy R\/O […]<\/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-207453","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP Puttaraju vs Chief Officer on 23 September, 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\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P Puttaraju vs Chief Officer on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-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=\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-23T14:50:08+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P Puttaraju vs Chief Officer on 23 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-23T14:50:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1485,\"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\\\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010\",\"name\":\"P Puttaraju vs Chief Officer on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-23T14:50:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P Puttaraju vs Chief Officer on 23 September, 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":"P Puttaraju vs Chief Officer on 23 September, 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\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P Puttaraju vs Chief Officer on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-23T14:50:08+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P Puttaraju vs Chief Officer on 23 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-23T14:50:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010"},"wordCount":1485,"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\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010","name":"P Puttaraju vs Chief Officer on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-23T14:50:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-puttaraju-vs-chief-officer-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P Puttaraju vs Chief Officer on 23 September, 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\/207453","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=207453"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207453\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207453"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207453"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207453"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}