{"id":209824,"date":"2010-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010"},"modified":"2014-03-14T07:54:09","modified_gmt":"2014-03-14T02:24:09","slug":"chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Chandraraj S\/O Chinnaswamy vs Government Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Chandraraj S\/O Chinnaswamy vs Government Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: B.S.Patil<\/div>\n
-- 1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 22\"\" DAY OF NOVEMBER. 20 \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 3.5. PA:rfL 1' \"7  \"' \n\nW.P.No.33600\/20,10 (1-R)  M  \" ~ K D'\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nChandraraj,\nS\/o Chinnaswamy.\nAged about 44 years,\n\nR\/o.No.30, Ramagondanahgiiii \n\nKodi, Whitefieid,\nBaI1gaiore~56O 066.\n\n(By Sri Brijesh P_a:i1;,: Adv.j;'\nAND: D \n\n1. Gover.nmeut'of K\u00e96:nat'a_i:a.\nRep.I::y its SeC1f--etaijz,  '\nReveriue DepartIrie.nt,\u00bb.  \nVidhanasoudha, '  is\nAmbedkai*..Veedh1',. .\nBanga1ore--56Q 001.\n\n2-. 'I'he VAssist'a1f11'. Coriiiiiissioner,\n\n. Bangalore Division,\n\n  :B'8_.I'Ig'a_l:O_IjC;' '\n\n3. Fi'h__eO'I'a1f} \nBai'1gai--ore' North Taluk,\n\n Bangalore.\n  '~(i=3y.,sfi~~R.Kumar, HCGP.)\n\n**$\n\nis  1 gf.  EETITIONER\n\nRES?ONDENTS\n\nThis writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of\n\nO \" \" ihe Constitution of india praying to quash the impugned order\n\n\n\nWgw\n\ndated 12.7.2010 passed by respondent No.2 vide Anne:x:ure~G to<\/pre>\n
the writ proceedings and all proceedings pursuant thereto and
\netc.\n<\/p>\n
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Heari;n–g”‘this<\/p>\n
day. the Court made the following:–  ._ ._
\nORDER 9\n<\/p>\n
1. In this Writ petition. petitioner is::clrallen:gi11g”t1ie<\/p>\n
dated 12.07.2010 passed by\u00bb; the Assistant T,l.C1om1nissioner,’=op<\/p>\n
Bangalore North Division, Bangalore)\u00bb in exlerlcisc.”V-oflthelwlpowers
\nconferred under Section 8l3~…of  Land Reforms Act
\n(for short, ‘the Act’) in  for the alleged
\nviolation of the  79A and 79B
\nread with     V<\/p>\n
2.  He purchased 7 guntas of<\/p>\n
land comprise ind’  situated at Ramagondanahalli,<\/p>\n
\ufb01obli. Bllan-galore East Taluk, under a registered sale<\/p>\n
d*rjieed”d.ate.d’\u00abi0,lt}._l994 from one Muniyarnrna. Ever since the<\/p>\n
date of-.purch.a~se’phe is in actual possession and enjoyment of the<\/p>\n
9 property. 9eti’Lioner has produced the record of rights pertaining<\/p>\n
llthsa\u00e9land in question at Annexures–B and (3 to show his<\/p>\n
occzivpation and enjoyment right from 1994-95. According to the<\/p>\n
‘petitioner. himself and his family owned agricultural lands and<\/p>\n
 were carrying on agricultural operations as on the appointed<\/p>\n
h 3 A44;\n<\/p>\n
dated i.e. 01.03.1974 and also as on the date the land in
\nquestion was purchased i.e. 10.10.1994. In fact. there is no<\/p>\n
dispute about this as the finding recorded by the.._”A.ss–istant<\/p>\n
Commissioner in this regard is in favour of the pet_i’ti.oner–.<\/p>\n
that as on the appointed date and also as”‘or1::’_the”‘vd’ate-cot”\u00bb <\/p>\n
purchase, the petitioner and his, f:3.f11.J’.iy2″>I11’\u20acIf\ufb01bef\ufb01”~.__W?i1’e<\/p>\n
agriculturists. However, the Assistant Cor.c’niissi.o.ner has’<\/p>\n
initiated the proceedings after a  cf__16′  the date
\nof purchase of the propertgribyp the   issuing a notice
\nand calling upon him to   show that he was
\nan agriculturi_st._:  ‘fthat   to purchase the
\nproperty   his family was earning.\n<\/p>\n
The initiation of   noticed from Annexure–E
\nnotice which__ :_’0.t$:’;0\u00ab2′.2010. A perusal of Annexure–E<\/p>\n
notice ,disclos’es..:Vthat tlielllldifahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk,<\/p>\n
 Vt\ufb01rishnaraja l>’upram,lVhasv stated that he has noticed that the<\/p>\n
lpetitionerwiiad ‘purchased 7 guntas of land of Ramagondanahalli<\/p>\n
by xixfaylof a .registe1’ed Sale Deed and hence the petitioner should<\/p>\n
 produce” certain documents before him on 26.02.2010. The<\/p>\n
   sought for are I} Particulars to show that as on<\/p>\n
 petitioner possessed agricultural lands 2)<\/p>\n
u\ufb01locurnents obtained from the of\ufb01cials of the Income Tax<\/p>\n
\ufb01r<\/p>\n
W 4 M
\nDepartment to show the annual income of the petitioner during
\n5 years prior to the date of purchase 3} Family income derived by<\/p>\n
the petitioner from sources other than the agric–ultu_”ral’*.VA4)<\/p>\n
Certi\ufb01cate showing that the petitioner was an <\/p>\n
else permission obtained from the_\u00bbAs_sistantH”CotnIn’issione;\u00a5 ”<\/p>\n
under Section 80 of the Act. Petitioner. wasiaglsoii notified xridexthe<\/p>\n
said notice that in case he failleciovto produce th’eA~w[pa_.rticulars;.it<\/p>\n
action would be taken as per the4_t:uprow’..s_ions’ vvvtiamataka
\nLand Reforms Act. Pursuant ‘to issued. petitioner
\nappeared and filed his    that he was
\nan agriculturistp  did not possess
\nincome more    and was therefore not in
\nany manner to  property.\n<\/p>\n
3. The ‘Assistant “CVommi_ssioner. as already adverted to<\/p>\n
above, has found’-\u00bbt_hat’the petitioner was an agriculturist as on<\/p>\n
  date  has come to the conclusion that since<\/p>\n
produced by the petitioner to show that his<\/p>\n
  income__wa_s~  the limit prescribed during the 5 years prior<\/p>\n
~ .t_o’~irhe dateoi’ purchase, it had to be presumed that the petitioner<\/p>\n
it  ‘purchased the land in violation of the provisions contained<\/p>\n
it  Section 79A and 80 of the Act and therefore the land was<\/p>\n
  li\ufb01ple to be forfeited to the State Government. Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
_ 5 _
\nAssistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order to the<\/p>\n
said effect.\n<\/p>\n
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits_.v’~tha,t’~\u00bb.the<\/p>\n
initiation of the proceedings by the Assistant  <\/p>\n
a lapse of 16 years from the date ofhpurchase” try the”. <\/p>\n
petitioner is without authority of lawvj\u00bb,  <\/p>\n
that the petitioner was not a11a:%ge\u00abd of possessii1g”i.iicome\u00a7 mm;-is.<\/p>\n
than what is prescribed as per the”.proyision’s._contained under
\nSection 79A of the Act and.._there3foreith’e__A,ssistant Commissioner
\nwas not justified inA.proceed.ing’–on the basis’ ‘of-1:ion–production of<\/p>\n
the copy of the_retu:}ns_Vfi1ed E-eiore’j_’th_e”incerne Tax Authorities by<\/p>\n
drawing adVei’se”iinfer}’-;~nce’ against” ‘the’ “petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
5. Learned Gover:diment1’i’?l’eader who has taken notice for the<\/p>\n
respondents 1’subm.i.tS. “the petitioner has an alternative<\/p>\n
  of an appeal under Section 118(2) of the<\/p>\n
1V’ACt.i.h’efoprev..tl”1ev’Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. He further submits<\/p>\n
that there  iimitation prescribed under the provisions of<\/p>\n
Section  of’ the Act for initiating action for violation of the<\/p>\n
1′ ”.pro\\ris’i.onsH’contained under Section 79A. 79B and Section 80 of<\/p>\n
6. Section 83 of the Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“83. Inquiry regarding illegal transaction.
\nprescribed authority shall, after a
\ninquiry, determine whether the transalctiaii *’
\nreported to it under Section 82 or
\nnotice in any other manner i’smiln”cnni.raVentio_n
\n{or is unlawful or invalid und\u00aber}?’th’eV  if
\nthis Act, [as they stood -b_eforer.r,_)r” as they;
\nafter the date of corrimencernenti  of the
\nAmendment Act]… and””‘  a ‘declaration
\naccordingly. Any”‘transactiloi1lsopdeclared to be in
\ncontravention of {orv:is._unla’yvful=Vor~:l.iii.\\}’alid under}
\nany of tlie.._p’rovisions.:l,.of they stood
\nbefore” ‘or    after the date of
\ncomrnencefnent lof.~ Arneni\u00e9jrnent Act} shall be
\nnull andvlvoidni.I{The’~land in respect of which such
\nplace shall, as penalty. be
\nforfeited .tollanciyest:..in the State Government {free
\n_.\u00a7lf’1-om all”‘encumbrances.} No amount is payable<\/p>\n
V’ th”ere’for.]”\n<\/p>\n
  79A of the Act enacts a prohibition for<\/p>\n
  purcliase of. by a person whose aggregate income of<\/p>\n
hi-mself ariydithe members of the family from sources other than<\/p>\n
 \u00e9lglriculltttral is more than Rs.2,00,000\/– for a period of 5<\/p>\n
 .\/\ufb01consecutive years preceding the date of purchase. Section 79133<\/p>\n
  tS prohibition of holding agricultural land by a person who<\/p>\n
BAAJA 7 LALAL
\nis not an agriculturist. In the instant case, the question<\/p>\n
presented is regarding the violation of Section 79A of the Act.<\/p>\n
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance the<\/p>\n
judgments of the Apex Court in the case <\/p>\n
Foundation 8: Others Vs. Union of India”&   SC it b<\/p>\n
852}. State of Gujarat Vs. Patel  <\/p>\n
1959 so 1297). Ram Chand Vs.  of Aihndiat [(i992;}f1~VVsc:c 441 V S’<\/p>\n
and also on an unreported judgm.exn’t._oi’.._pthe hl\ufb01ivisionii Bench of
\nthis Court in W.A.No.86\u00e9i3’\/l99t~’}on 09.02.1998 in
\nthe case of M\/s.4_ASaroj bf Kamataka &
\nAnother. submits a   of any period of
\nlimitation  power for resuming and
\nforfeiting  land  the provisions contained under<\/p>\n
Section 79A Act,VtheV.s’uo motu powers are required to be<\/p>\n
. gxercigsed  the authorities under Section 83 of the Act within a<\/p>\n
V’reas:o’nab\u00a3e ti.meg.SAccording to him, as the power is exercised. in<\/p>\n
therinstant’\u00abVc’ase’,;;.VVafter a lapse of 16 years from the date of<\/p>\n
purchase ”–made by the petitioner, the same cannot be<\/p>\n
 ‘characterised as reasonable exercise of powers within a<\/p>\n
.’_reasonable period and therefore the very initiation of proceedings<\/p>\n
 gig:-“‘vitiated as the action was barred due to lapse of time.<\/p>\n
A-#4 8 _\n<\/p>\n
9. Learned Government Pleader justifies the initiation of
\naction stating that no period of limitation is prescribed under<\/p>\n
Section 83 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
10. On careful consideration of the materialstori i’eoord <\/p>\n
the ruling relied upon by the learnedicounsel for  It i<\/p>\n
find that it is a well establishedgprinclipletthat
\nrevision or suo Inotu power llofiinitiativrig  is
\nconferred on an authorityi theggcsaidppv-.povv.er   exercised
\nwithin a reasonable time?  lliiveliA.l.les.tablished principle
\nthat if for any   prevented from
\nexercising such a   time, it must assign
\nreasons  vihy:vlthe”–req;l1ired action in accordance
\nwith   and how the authorities were<\/p>\n
prevented either be’ca’us:e’ of the misrepresentation or fraud<\/p>\n
.-‘..\u00a2OmIr1i;:tedkA.by the person. concerned against whom the action is<\/p>\n
lfinitiategd ..VAw=hich”~–.prevented the authorities from taking such<\/p>\n
ac1′:i’o’n.,’ ‘V<\/p>\n
‘pi i. In lthehinstant case, it is not in dispute that the action is<\/p>\n
 lisonght tollbe initiated after a lapse of 16 years from the date of<\/p>\n
 The land in question is 7 gnntas purchased in the<\/p>\n
fyear 1994. Neither in the notice issued to the petitioner, nor in<\/p>\n
VUVVVVV 9 _
\nthe impugned order, there is any allegation made against the
\npetitioner of having suppressed any material fact or_.o_f not<\/p>\n
disclosing his income. The Tahsildar calls upon the petit–io’ne’i’.,Ato<\/p>\n
produce certain documents having kept quiet for_.A’1i3 <\/p>\n
the date of registered Sale Deed. The _’.”\u00a37ahsildar.lis”  <\/p>\n
of the documents pertaining to the revenue e~rVeco’r_d’s of <\/p>\n
It is not as if the name of the petitioner was not in the!’<\/p>\n
revenue records after the registere_cl’:ASaie_VDeed ei\u00e9ecuted in
\nhis favour in the year is Tahsildar, who
\nis required to effect the mutation in  the petitioner after
\nthe sale deed    the mutation based
\non the registered   back in the year 1995.\n<\/p>\n
Having kept  assigning any reason, the
\npresent proceedings._.\u00aba–r\u00a2.ll  to be initiated. The action
\ntherefore  thellaugtliohrities  initiating such a proceeding after
\n  delay cannot be characterised as<\/p>\n
reasci1able:’le>;e’i’ciseof powers within a reasonable time.<\/p>\n
  12. A ‘—‘1_’hev_j~uc1gi’nents relied upon by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
” petitioner’  precisely on the point. In fact, the Division Bench<\/p>\n
  Court in W.A.No.8643.\/ 1996 while dealing with a similar<\/p>\n
 ,…Hrn.gtter pertaining to violation of Section 798 of the Act, after<\/p>\n
 ing to the judgments of the Apex Court, has held that<\/p>\n
__  __
\ninordinate delay of 10 years in initiating the proceedings would
\nrender the initiation of the proceedings illegal. In theinstant<\/p>\n
case, the proceedings are initiated after a lapse of<\/p>\n
Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner <\/p>\n
unreasonable action on the part of the respondent-‘authoriti.es=in V’ \u00bb <\/p>\n
initiating the proceedings is well foun}:led:.’_”sI~r\u00a5.ien1ce,the pe.ti–tioner<\/p>\n
is entitled to succeed in this Writ’ it _ C\n<\/p>\n
13. The arguments advanced the le~a_rne–c’\u00a3 Government<\/p>\n
Pleader that the petitionergjjrnust _’he”gas’1teclVp’vt’o.’availthe alternative
\nremedy cannot be entertained  :the\u00ab._:lvverylb__’authority of the<\/p>\n
Assistant Commissioner =i_::1 gin.i~tia’tingf_”th\u00a2_gjproceedings after a<\/p>\n
lapse of 1.6″   quelstien.  this writ petition. in the
\nlight of the   “to supra and the judgment<\/p>\n
rendered byllthe Division “i3ench of this Court, I find that it is<\/p>\n
__._unneces~sary for It the____petitioner to go before the Karnataka<\/p>\n
A”App:ellate as it is prima facie clear that the initiation of<\/p>\n
 ‘?g1’ri:eif,’a ‘lapse of 16 years is impermissible in the facts<\/p>\n
and circurnstarices of the case.\n<\/p>\n
 ,._Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order<\/p>\n
_l p_as.se’d”by the Assistant Commissioner is set aside, so also the<\/p>\n
, u of’<\/p>\n
._  _
\nproceedings initiated under the provisions of Section 83 of the<\/p>\n
Act shall stand quashed.\n<\/p>\n
15. Learned Government Pleader is permitted toe.~\u00a7i.1’e_&\u00bbQ’f<\/p>\n
appearance within three weeks from today.<\/p>\n
PKS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Chandraraj S\/O Chinnaswamy vs Government Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2010 Author: B.S.Patil — 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22″” DAY OF NOVEMBER. 20 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE 3.5. PA:rfL 1′ “7 “‘ W.P.No.33600\/20,10 (1-R) M ” ~ K D’ BETWEEN: Chandraraj, S\/o Chinnaswamy. Aged […]<\/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-209824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChandraraj S\/O Chinnaswamy vs Government Of Karnataka on 22 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\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandraraj S\/O Chinnaswamy vs Government Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-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=\"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-14T02:24:09+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\\\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandraraj S\\\/O Chinnaswamy vs Government Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-14T02:24:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1854,\"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\\\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Chandraraj S\\\/O Chinnaswamy vs Government Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-14T02:24:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandraraj S\\\/O Chinnaswamy vs Government Of Karnataka on 22 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":"Chandraraj S\/O Chinnaswamy vs Government Of Karnataka on 22 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\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandraraj S\/O Chinnaswamy vs Government Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-14T02:24:09+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\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandraraj S\/O Chinnaswamy vs Government Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-14T02:24:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010"},"wordCount":1854,"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\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010","name":"Chandraraj S\/O Chinnaswamy vs Government Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-14T02:24:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandraraj-so-chinnaswamy-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandraraj S\/O Chinnaswamy vs Government Of Karnataka on 22 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\/209824","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=209824"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209824\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}