{"id":219067,"date":"2010-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010"},"modified":"2014-07-30T19:24:44","modified_gmt":"2014-07-30T13:54:44","slug":"poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of … on 26 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of … on 26 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 26TH DAY 01? OCTOBER, 2019\nBEFORE: J _}  \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIV.  \nWrit Petition No.6676 of 2004 (LA-BEA; A \"'  ' \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nMRS. POORNIMA GIRISH\n\nW\/O GIRISH\n\nAGED ABOUT 29 YEARS\n\nR\/AT NOJ193\/D,\n\n121%-I CROSS ROAD  . \nArm MAIN, M C EX'FENSION*.. f\nWJAYANAGAR * 'I - '\n\nBANGALORE \u00abW 560 040 PE'I'ITIONER\n\n ' SE 9; 1cI:ish\ufb01\u00e9f\u00a7ip3,_._A\u00a7j\u00a7.]\n\nREVENUE .UEPART'PAENT. A \n\nGOVT. SOT KAI?.N;A'1'AKA \"\n\nM S BUILDINGS. I  _ _ --\nBANGALORE. j--- ._ 560 001\" ~--\n\nREP, BY ITS P'R1NC1EA'L\u00ab SECRETARY\n\n1.\n\n.THE c'eM'M1SS1ONER'\n_; BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT\n  ..... \n13AN~::AL.ORE\n\n.- 'I'HE.S;>ECSIAL ADDITIONAL LAND\n'-  ACQUISITION OFFICER\n BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT\n' AUTHORITY\n\n13A1:JGALORE RESPONDENTS\n[By Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, AGA for R1;\nSri U Abdul Khader, Adv., for R2 & R3[\n\nTHIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 22'? OF\n\n'THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRLY.\n\nNOTIFICATION DT.8.4.2003 81 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE\n\n\n\n2\n\nDT.9.4.03 ISSUED BY THE COMMR. EDA. VIDE ANNK AND THE\nFINAL NOTIFICATION DT.9.9.2003 & PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE\nDT. 10.9.2003 ISSUED BY R1 VIDE ANNLAND ETC.\n\nTHIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY \nTHIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:~  \n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Writ petitioner who is saidpto be the and in <\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of the  Ij’eaiiiiig”‘s_ite<\/p>\n
No.71, Mailathahalli Viiiege,  -5Hob1–i.0<\/p>\n
Bangalore North Taltik, has_…so~ught for “q1;1eshing of the
\npreliminary noti\ufb01catiiont-A  and \ufb01nal
\nnotification tiated    of which the
\npetitioners-ijre1s\ufb02_–.s;oi1ght::5_to_he acquired by the
\nrespondent  “II3\u00e9in:g’aIore’.””I)e*g}e1opment Authority for the<\/p>\n
purpose of..d0eVeIIopinent:ef Sir M Visveshwaraiah Layout in<\/p>\n
 V. ‘_ the  “ha_s__prayed for the following reliefs:<\/p>\n
  “‘a_ writ of certiorari or any other
\n. ‘Iiapp.ropif\u00e9a.te writ or direction as the case may<\/p>\n
 be “I.i’f\u00bbS,CI air as the petitioners lands are
\n concerned and be pleased to quash:\n<\/p>\n
 ..   It The preliminary notification bearing<\/p>\n
No.BDA\/A. U. V.A.L.A No. 79\/ 03-04
\ndt;8\/4\/03 and published in the Gazette
\ndt.9.4.03 82. issued by the Commissioner,
\nBDA, Bangalore, which is marked as<\/p>\n
Armexu.re–K.\n<\/p>\n
[ii]<\/p>\n
[iii]<\/p>\n
[iv]<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Final no ttjicatton bearing No.AE~ 7 49-
\nB ‘lore–LAQ-2003 dt. 9\/ 9\/ O3 and<\/p>\n
published in the Gazette dt.10.9.03 &<\/p>\n
issued by the 151 respondent, which ts.__<\/p>\n
marked as Annexure-L.\n<\/p>\n
be pleased to issue the<\/p>\n
mandamus directing the respondents*e,& % <\/p>\n
their o_fficials from dgtspossessingvg ‘the–_
\npetitioner from the p;’operty_ in quest1’on’,*~’<\/p>\n
which is described ing\ufb02the’cc\u00bb.Schedu1\u20ac~..p <\/p>\n
hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
be pleased to grai’t.t..”such other greliefs in
\nthe circumstances… of__ the case, in] the
\ninterest ofj__us_tice;A equtity and law.”<\/p>\n
2. I have heard Sri  counsei for the<\/p>\n
petitioner ‘Abdulgithaderflearned counsel for the<\/p>\n
resporiderit —-. ‘Ba t’1ga1ore._DeVe1opment Authority.<\/p>\n
3. Sri _  learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
mosaic tiles and is also residing in the very premises.<\/p>\n
   -9.9 B-arigaliore Development Authority requests
\n  be cailed tomorrow though the report placed
\n by the Very official of the BDA indicates
\n that   petitioner has continued to remain in<\/p>\n
A ‘~:9f”‘pos’s\u00abession and occupation of the building constructed on<\/p>\n
9  the site and running a manufacturing unit to manufacture<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
4. if such is the factual position, the acquisition
\nproceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned has<\/p>\n
become stale and inconclusive, not havin.gVi\u00bb~.44 taken<\/p>\n
possession of the subject property, <\/p>\n
acquisition under the provisions of””th–e:f ,E3’an*ga1_or”e. <\/p>\n
Development Authority Act, I9-?’6   <\/p>\n
Automatically. the noti\ufb01cations. issued forl’lthe._’pi.i.rp3ose <\/p>\n
acquiring the lands vvill not_…einiire.._ypto .the.,benl3e\ufb01t of the
\nauthority insofar as  0′-particuiigizydtlparcel of land is
\nconcerned as it.is._nov\\j”coVnced_edV:that~ ‘authority has not
\ntaken possessi.Qn..bt_1t’   the petitioner to remain
\nin posvs.essi’on V  ;  0   h <\/p>\n
5. It   court to protect interest of the<\/p>\n
 Ci’Ef;Zt:?.n:S__pA.ftj0II1ab\u20aci1T1_g\u00a2 subjected to harassment by the<\/p>\n
  gwhirrisical exercise of power by public<\/p>\n
 vvas de\ufb01nitely open to the authority to have<\/p>\n
saved thesituation even in terms of the order that had<\/p>\n
 to be passed by this court earlier in writ petition<\/p>\n
  l\\\u00a7o.16133 of 2004 and connected matters disposed of on<\/p>\n
6.6.2006 by offering the petitioner any alternative<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
solution, but the authority having kept quiet and non
\nresponsive to this writ petition as Well as travai1s\u00bb:.:’:of_V_the
\npetitioner and even having
\norders \/ observations \/ directions contained ” ii   of .  –
\nthis court dated 6.6.2006 passed:’;in
\nof 2004 and connected matters,
\ngross irresponsibility on  .$E}q”e.:vresvpondent –
\nauthority, but also a  of functioning
\nas it is obvious that some  the petitioner
\nhave been     ‘authority itself whereas
\nmany   petitioner are driven to
\napproach “‘2vhieh again only demonstrates<\/p>\n
the erratVic–.._V%dmanner._  functioning of this authority,<\/p>\n
 to ‘A”be…_…<:reated under the statute for the<\/p>\n
 ddevelopineiiti of~Banga1ore city and surrounding areas!<\/p>\n
'ggnothin<\/p>\n
6.} _f’What’f’ii_s.’happening in the name of development is<\/p>\n
cfhshort of destruction and haphazard manner of<\/p>\n
4:; ~<\/p>\n
“:d:’1’unet’ioning to the detriment of persons\/citizens like the<\/p>\n
‘  petitioner. \u00a7’\\\u00ab~-\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
7. in the wake of the inaction on the part of the
\nauthority itself and which is now conceded in terms of the
\nreport placed before this court by the authori’tl’!y5″‘:”.;tV is
\nobvious that the situation is more akin to
\nby the provisions of section 20__of the Act”
\nprovision the authority if it is:;’=no’1i’_’_A
\nwithin the area earmarked’l-f\u00e9ifr.deyelflpmf\u00e9iig\u00e9’Alllittien “if
\nauthority is of the ,.9DinioAn\u00ab~l:llil1-at’–~._aslhla’resuilt of the
\ndevelopment in the  ‘the land owner
\nwhose land is_1;eft_  gain, then the
\nauthority   tax and it will be
\nopen   take action to claim such<\/p>\n
betterment tax in a’&C’C(ll_j’daHC\u20ac with law, after issue of<\/p>\n
 _ necessary notice-.to_ the petitioner in this regard.<\/p>\n
V”eheard Sri Krishnappa, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the’-~.peti’tion.erl and Sri Abdul Khader, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
“‘thepresp.o’ndent — authority on merits, it is found that the<\/p>\n
 _ ‘situation is one which is irredeeniable and irretrievable for<\/p>\n
  ,.the authorities as the authority by its own inaction and<\/p>\n
letharginess has allowed the acquisition proceedings<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
insofar as the petitioner is concerned to lapse. Therefore,
\nthe acquisition proceedings in terms of the prelirriinary
\nnoti\ufb01cation under section 17 of the
\nnoti\ufb01cation under section 19 of the
\nquashed only insofar as it relates’-to   <\/p>\n
of the petitioner in terms ofthe  novel
\nthe court according . to  ‘the  is in
\npossession of site <\/p>\n
9. It is alsoopen   ensure that the<\/p>\n
structure, i.f”a’11yf:..o1fi_ tl1e.sit.e is brought in conformity with
\nthe bu;i_ldinglAbly.e–la’ws an’d__I’egulations which are in force in
\nthe Concc.rried lareafltt”is’rather surprising nay annoying<\/p>\n
that ;a~ public’-\u00bba_uthorityT like the Bangalore Development<\/p>\n
‘Atithori’tj7 behaves in a most irresponsible manner to<\/p>\n
 without responding to either the land<\/p>\n
own’ers’v–._’tra'<fails and even has the tenacity to ignore and<\/p>\n
Vbyptassveven court orders. as if this court had in a<\/p>\n
_  situation similar and in a cause brought before this court<\/p>\n
 "earlier by a group of land owners, has already passed<\/p>\n
orders [passed in Writ petition No.16}33 of 2004 and<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
connected matters disposed of on 6.6.2006], it is the
\nbounden duty of the public authority like the
\nDevelopment Authority to have implemented
\nthat order in letter and spirit andvrl\ufb02otd to
\nto seek relief only before this court.   :5 it it y 4 <\/p>\n
10. Though Sri Abdul Klaad-er, 1\u00e9ar{1ca_
\nrespondent — authority  tolhthelylnotice of the
\ncourt that this Writ petition  for default
\nand had come  be   that in no way<\/p>\n
absolves the ‘authoirity: frorn -its ginsensible, irresponsible<\/p>\n
conduet.   on notice about this writ
\npetitionilwayp “year 2004 and if the public<\/p>\n
auth~_o’rit.y is.’ insensiti’ve and irresponsible to the notice<\/p>\n
   Court to examine the grievance and for<\/p>\n
 is sought for in the writ petition and as<\/p>\n
 _ has””bee.n’e:etended by the very authority to other similarly<\/p>\n
.py.d:pAlao__ed lpersons. then it is nothing short of a most<\/p>\n
  i’;re’s’ponsib1e conduct on the part of the public authority<\/p>\n
 “Which is always expected to not only respond to the needs<\/p>\n
and travails of the citizens of the Country, but is also duty<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
bound to obey and respect court orders. The Bangalore
\nDevelopment Authority has miserably failed inw ineeting<\/p>\n
either of these requirements.\n<\/p>\n
11. In the circumstances, the’
\nnoti\ufb01cation dated 8.4.2003 :\n<\/p>\n
writ petition] and the fina1″‘-noti\ufb01cation
\n[Copy at Annexure~L to   hereby
\nquashed by issue of  only to the
\nextent of petit*ion\u00a3er’s    covered by these<\/p>\n
two notific:i;:tions.. and n4o’t7.’jfor’n1lore:. <\/p>\n
12. ‘l’he–..:B’ang”a1ore Development Authority<\/p>\n
is mulctedtwlith  cost of ‘$10,000\/~ for the misery<\/p>\n
 V.  that’3’\u00a7.t __caused.._tQ. a person like the petitioner.<\/p>\n
  paid within four weeks by depositing the<\/p>\n
am”ount’before this court. Where after. the petitioner can<\/p>\n
it  draw the amount through his counsel. If the respondent<\/p>\n
it  “‘faiIs’Alto deposit the cost, then the registry is directed to<\/p>\n
 “issue a certi\ufb01cate in favour of the petitioner, to enable the<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner to realize the amount as though it is a decree of<\/p>\n
the civil court.\n<\/p>\n
14. Writ petition is allowed. Rule made abso1ui_’e..e<\/p>\n
   e   ‘ <\/p>\n
AN\/~<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of … on 26 October, 2010 Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY 01? OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE: J _} THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIV. Writ Petition No.6676 of 2004 (LA-BEA; A “‘ ‘ BETWEEN: MRS. POORNIMA GIRISH […]<\/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-219067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPoornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of ... on 26 October, 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\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of ... on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-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=\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-30T13:54:44+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of … on 26 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-30T13:54:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1382,\"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\\\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of ... on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-30T13:54:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of … on 26 October, 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":"Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of ... on 26 October, 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\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of ... on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-30T13:54:44+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of … on 26 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-30T13:54:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010"},"wordCount":1382,"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\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010","name":"Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of ... on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-30T13:54:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poornima-girish-vs-revenue-department-govt-of-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Poornima Girish vs Revenue Department Govt Of … on 26 October, 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\/219067","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=219067"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219067\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}