{"id":223017,"date":"2009-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-07-21T02:25:16","modified_gmt":"2018-07-20T20:55:16","slug":"b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"B S Pandith S\/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
B S Pandith S\/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.Gopalagowda & K.N.Keshavanarayana<\/div>\n
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KJXRNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 2913 DAY OF' SEPTEMBER 2009\n\nPRESENT:\n\nTHE HONBLE MRJUSTICE V.GOPALA G1o%Xf1jA.'   E.\n\nAND\n\nTHE HONBLE MR.JUS'I'ICE K.N7;JEESTmTANARA%YANA7'  \n\nW.A.NO.331 1[\/2005'{U'L.(_i1\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1 B S PANDITI-I\nS\/O S S PANDITH ._ V\nSINCE DEAD BY LES. _  V\n\n1{A} SMT.vANAjE_E.\"PAIs\u00a7I3:'TH\"  \nWTTIES--LAfI~E E;S,.12AN:;1T1--1 ' \nAGED 66'  \n\n1(5) ANJANA,%SURES'EEW-[:O\u00abS.SURESH\nD \/0 LA_T13.B.S_.PA_NDITI'H\nAGED 4o..yEARS '-\n\n' .\ufb02'1[C)V\"\"ANUPAI~lA B. PANEITH W\/O R.K.BARA'I'H\n\n\u00bb   _ VAGE<34_YEARS\n ARERJTQ N"O';113?, MOKSHA MARGA\nSIDDIIAREEHA; NAGARA, MYSORE DISTRICT.\n\n T  '(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER\n ' _--,DATED 19.12.2008)\n\n 2 " KV VANAJA\n D \/0 K VENKATARAMAIAH\n\n50 YEARS\n\nR\/O NO 1137, MOKSHA MARG\nSIDDARTH NAGAR\n\nMYSORE\n\n3 RATHNAMMA\nW\/O B K KENCHEGOWDA\n\n\n\n \n\n48 YEARS\n\nR\/O NO 311\/A, 2ND CROSS\nD SUBBAIAH ROAD\nMYSORE\n\n4 SHEELA\nD \/ O R K BHARATI-I\n46 YEARS\nR\/ O NO '7, DAYAJVIARGA\nSIDDARTHA LAYOUT\n\nMYSORE      \n\n{By STLJAYAKUMAR S. PATEL, SENiOR:'\u00a2O'IUNS_EL \n\nSR1. M R RAJAGOPAL, ADV.) : _  \n\nAND:\n\n1 THE STATE OF EAISIJATAIIA1. O'  A'\nBY ITS SECRETARY   I  \nDEPARTMENT OF. HO1I:'3INCf9_AND'. I " '\n\n ' \nIcISBUIL"m13;O.,%  'I -\nBANOALO_RE'e A1.  '\n\n2 THE'DEFUTY,cO_M1yIISS1ONER\n. ;..\u00bbxND PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY\n '-'.,UR}3AN LANDQEILING REGULATION\n MYSOPE DISTRICT MYSORE\n\n     CO--OP SOCIETY\nQ 'I-.I'BY'I'fE3. SECRETARY,\n WSOEE\n\n 4 M\u00a7?SORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n=   BY ITS COMMISSIONER\n_ MYSORE CITY\n\nRAMEGOWDA S\/ O RANGEGOWDA\nAGED ABOUT 60 YEARS\n\n6 BASAVEGOWDA S\/ O RANGEGOWDA\nAGED ABOUT 55 YEARS\n\n7 LAKKAPPA S\/ O RANGEGOWDA\n\nAGED ABOUT 52 YEARS \n\n\n\n8. KRISHNA S \/ O RANGEGOWDA\nAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS\n\nR-5 TO 4-8 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO2777.\nRAILWAY GATE ROAD,\n\nK.G.KOPPALU (KANNE GOWDANA KOPPALU}\nMYSORE.\n\n(AMENDED VIDE COURTORDER      \nDATED 25.1.2007}  RESRONDENTSV.   is E I\n\n(By SMTGEETHA MENON, G.A. _RoR R.--_1*& R-2.ARD \nSR1. PSMANJUNATH, ADV. EQ'R._R4) "  A 'V _  "\nTHIS. WRIT APPEAL IS i'aE1LED ms" 4 }OF THE\nKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACTT-PRAYING TO  ASIDE THE\nORDER PASSED IN TH'E4_V'JRIT--if PE;Ti';'\u00a7_IO_N\u00ab.NO.46942--45\/2004\nDATED OI\/O8\/2005.  *  =   \n\nRESERVED ON 4; ':r..\u00a7sb.-;3..2009 _  V_ \nPRONOUNCED;_oNf;.- 'V22;19.2009 "    \n\nT1518 =  HAVING BEEN HEARD AND\nRESERVED, THIS,DAYv.VKE3H.\/':VANARAYANA.J, PRONOUNGED\n\nTHE FOLLOWING: ' _ '\n\n _ -._J__.UDG M ENT\n\nA  is directed against the order dated\n\n  by the learned Single Judge of this Court\n\n 40942 to 45\/2004, dismissing the Writ\n\n  "\ufb01\u00e9eetitiopns med by the appellants.\n\n2. Following are the facts leading to the presentation\n\n@\n\nof writ petitions and the present appeal:\n\n\n\n \n\n(i)\n\n(ii)\n\nOne Rangegowda @ Chikkahydegowda, S\/0 Lakke\nGowda, father of respondents 5 to 8 to thvigsi\ufb02appeal<\/pre>\n
who were not parties to the Writ Petiti_ojns;..’ <\/p>\n
owner of lands bearing Suryey No_.-\n<\/p>\n
Sacres 16 guntas, Survey:’\u00bbNo.:-‘~2.23l\/4g” ‘rneastft-ruingg_A4<\/p>\n
acres 21 guntas, Survey’No. 18-2 1 Vmea’sij1ri.ng  acreiit<\/p>\n
32 gnntas and Survey 2.’n1easu1fi\u00a7ng 1 acre
\n34 guntas in a1l””rrie.as:_1ri–t1gu .ac~res 23 guntas all
\nsituated in Bogalcii   2 l<\/p>\n
Aftertbrce  Land (Ceiling and
\naeg\ufb01iatibn) l’i’Act l:”\u00bb.i976l_ll(‘fc5i~ short the Act), said<\/p>\n
Rangegowda ‘:.lj:”i}le’d._:fsta’tement in Form No.1, as per<\/p>\n
5R1%1eslll4″3..:l&I1d”‘ 9.”-ofvthe Rules framed under the Act<\/p>\n
 lV.gi\u00a3fingA.particti”lars of the extent of vacant land held<\/p>\n
V’   the urban agglomeration of Mysore<\/p>\n
 city’,  other particulars, as required by Section
\n A.  Blil of the Act on 13.9.1976, before the competent<\/p>\n
 authority under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
According to the appellants, said Rangegowda
\nformed a revenue lay–out of residential building sites<\/p>\n
in land bearing Survey N0. 210, and sold sites to<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
(iv)<\/p>\n
different persons. According to the appeilants<\/p>\n
during 1982 a 1983, each of them purcha.s_’e–d”‘–one<\/p>\n
site in the said 1ay–out from Rangegiowdiaffnnderv.4
\nunregistered sale deeds, and\u00bb–they wer’eI.’4pi’aced’9’\u00bb.in f
\nVacant possession of the respective sit.es,vpa,1fc;has’ed<\/p>\n
by them, and thereafteI’v,..:’p:ti1ey const1*ucted:Vstfuctures<\/p>\n
thereon. Thus accyordingf appellantsvgthey have
\nbeen in possession  ‘sites.\n<\/p>\n
In the;    authority,
\n‘as”‘per Section 8(1) of the
\n  held in excess of ceiling<\/p>\n
1irn;it,” on  showing that the declarant<\/p>\n
5Range\u00e9goyvdatisffhoiding 36,344.01 sq.Ints. of excess<\/p>\n
  ~.Thereafter, final statement as per Section 9<\/p>\n
if   under Section 10(1) of the Act were<\/p>\n
 p1.;z1:)iis:hed on 1.8.1985; notification under Section<\/p>\n
 A.  10(3) of the Act was published on 25.9.1985<\/p>\n
9’ “jdeclaring that the excess vacant land is deemed to<\/p>\n
have been acquired by the State Government with
\neffect from 10.10.1985; possession of excess vacant<\/p>\n
land was taken on 19.9.1990 as per Section 10(6) of<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
(ix)<\/p>\n
memorandum dated 21.9.1993 Annexure–F issued<\/p>\n
by MUDA are void and ineffective.\n<\/p>\n
In these Writ Petitions. The appellants _
\nthat pursuant to unregistered ,sa1e_-‘deeds: = ‘V
\nby Rangegowda, they are in ;”pos’.s_’es;sion ‘ofjreispiectiiye<\/p>\n
sites and at no point of-tlinie possession sites-”<\/p>\n
was taken from them bythe-cornpetentauthority, as<\/p>\n
per Section 10(6)’ 9 of  no notice as<\/p>\n
required. Sectiong ..th’e”:,ri’rct was served on<\/p>\n
them;’ as V”s’uch,”–.i,jtliey ycointinued to remain in
\npossession   respective sites, therefore, by<\/p>\n
virtue- of  of Sections 3 (2) & Section 4<\/p>\n
j’ .,of  Act 91999, all further proceedings stood<\/p>\n
 lal:iateid,p’They””a1so contended that Bogadi Village was<\/p>\n
it  the urban agglomeration of Mysore City,<\/p>\n
 as’  the entire proceedings initiated were illegal<\/p>\n
and without jurisdiction. They further contended<\/p>\n
 that, even prior to passing of the award dated<\/p>\n
31.3.1993 and taking possession of the land by the
\nGovernment as per the provisions of the Act, the<\/p>\n
Government purported to have exercised its power<\/p>\n
(<\/p>\n
Xi)<\/p>\n
“rt<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge by<\/p>\n
the order under appeal, dismissed the_,\u00abp:et4itions<\/p>\n
holding that the appellants being <\/p>\n
who filed the declaration andnot   ‘ _ <\/p>\n
the proceedings before the e_orripete_nt_ <\/p>\n
have no locus standi to.,:;c’h_allelnge the ‘-orders” passed’ V<\/p>\n
by the respondent  ‘Deputy”Comrnissioner.
\nThe learned   held that the
\noriginalfovvner  toyhvave hands with the
\n  ‘ called sale deeds as
\n    the appellants based<\/p>\n
 ‘e.oll:.isive documents, created by the<\/p>\n
_ original ,_:dcclarantA”‘to over come the effect of order<\/p>\n
7…hAiissued.gunder”Section 10(3) of the Act, which he did<\/p>\n
   as provided by Section 12 of the Act<\/p>\n
 beforeithe Divisional Commissioner.<\/p>\n
 aggrieved by the order of the learned Single<\/p>\n
 –*:Judge, dismissing the Writ Petitions, the appellants<\/p>\n
have filed this appeal. Upon service of notices of
\nappeal, the respondents have appeared through<\/p>\n
their learned Advocate.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3. We have heard Sridayakurnar S. Patil, learned<\/p>\n
Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants;<\/p>\n
Sri.P.S.Manjunath, learned Advocate <\/p>\n
Sri.H.M.Mnjunath, learned Advocate for’: <\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2, and  <\/p>\n
Advocate for respondent   _  Coal’<\/p>\n
operative Society. We.havev.pert1sed the ” origintal records
\npertaining to   the Deputy
\nCommissioner’, . f1;\\:\/Iysoijeg H   by the learned
\nGovernme\ufb02 ti    . A it<\/p>\n
4:;__  Patil, learned Senior counsel<\/p>\n
would subafrlitpthatl’ be seen from the recitals of<\/p>\n
 theagreement’  \/ sale deeds, the appellants are the<\/p>\n
  4 sites in Revenue lay out formed by the<\/p>\n
‘origir1al’VRangegowda, and they were placed in<\/p>\n
 possessionv of respective sites and in the absence of any<\/p>\n
it  to show that ULC authorities took possession of<\/p>\n
V   the sites from the appellants as provided by Section 10(5)<\/p>\n
 and (6) of the Act, the appellants deemed to be in<\/p>\n
possession of the sites as such, the entire proceedings<\/p>\n
stood abated by virtue of Repeal Act of 1999, and the<\/p>\n
%\/\/.\n<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
the property who was the declarant did not question the<\/p>\n
actions on the part of the respondents, and sincelethe<\/p>\n
declarant and his family members themselye–s’_’ _<\/p>\n
admitted that they have voluntarily .del_iver_ed” po:sse’ssi’on oi ” = <\/p>\n
the property to ULC authorities, :’t.he1’_’_AapVpeiiants  <\/p>\n
locus standi to question the orders A13..nexures=\u00a7_*Eand <\/p>\n
that as the excess vacant –v\u00a7rith’the._yGo;irernment
\nupon publication of  Section 10(3) of the
\nAct, and since.   had been taken
\nin  of Section 10(5) 8: (6) of
\nthe    ;Act coming into force,
\nacquisitiorrof  as such, the Repeal of<\/p>\n
the Act  1jor.e;.:”reictk3i~1 the acquisition of the land in<\/p>\n
‘hquestionf a”s.,such,”‘the learned Single Judge is justified in<\/p>\n
 thehwrit Petitions; that since there is nothing<\/p>\n
on'”r.eco_r’d  show that as on the date of taking possession<\/p>\n
  of,,land”-as per Section 10(5) 8: (6) of the Act, the appellants<\/p>\n
“”\u00ab2s:7e’re’ in possession of the sites, they were not entitled for<\/p>\n
 “any notice from the competent authority under Section<\/p>\n
10(5) of the Act; that the observation made during the<\/p>\n
course of the order dated 16.4.1997 — Annexure–R2 and<\/p>\n
f’\\<\/p>\n
unregistered sale deeds are all created documents in
\ncollusion with the erstwhile owner. Before this Court the<\/p>\n
appellants have produced the alleged unregisteVre’:::l””‘rs.ale<\/p>\n
deeds, along with a memo. Reading of the _<\/p>\n
these documents indicates that they 2 <\/p>\n
deeds transferring title in respect of irnmiovablre <\/p>\n
As could be seen from the’s_e’~–._docu1nents,f:they.,,are note’<\/p>\n
properly staniped and they are__u:Iiregistered\u00ab.f_ Seciiion 34 of
\nthe Karnataka Stamp  uthatfiio document not
\nproperly stamped ._shali”‘beiilreceiiredlv’-indict’evidence for any
\npurpose] l”Not..o:dioubl\u00a7,”‘Section  the Indian Registration
\nAct permits  unregistered document for<\/p>\n
collateral purpeosefto prove a transaction, which does not<\/p>\n
‘ V’ “requ.a.fe :registration’;”””However, the prohibition imposed<\/p>\n
i..1nc_l_er  of the Karnataka Stamp Act is total and<\/p>\n
as    provision a document which is not properly<\/p>\n
 insufficiently stamped cannot be received and<\/p>\n
  into for any purpose including the collateral<\/p>\n
 -purpose. The decisions cited by the learned Senior<\/p>\n
” counsel for the appellants in this regard have been<\/p>\n
rendered in the light of the provisions of Section 49 of the<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
the State Government or any person duly authorised by
\nthe State Government or by the competent authoriis\ufb01iyand<\/p>\n
any amount has been paid by the State Gove_rnm.e_nt:<\/p>\n
respect of such land, such landwshall <\/p>\n
unless the amount paid has been
\nGovernment. Section 4
\nabatement of legal  Section,
\nall proceedings relating”-any’  or purported to
\nbe made underi\ufb02ghe  immediately
\nbefore the   before any court,
\n  abate. However,
\naccording  vpflselction 4, the said section has<\/p>\n
no ap_plicat’ion’to: the.,_p1′..oceedings relating to Sections 11,<\/p>\n
   oi’tl1e—-\u00ab13’rincipal Act, if such proceedings are<\/p>\n
 “tIr:1:e:..1and, possession of which has been taken<\/p>\n
  ‘State Government or any person duly<\/p>\n
V’~\u00bb.autho”rised by the State Government or by any competent<\/p>\n
it   Admittedly, in this case by 1999, no<\/p>\n
   __proceedings as referred to under Section 4 of the 1999 Act<\/p>\n
V was pending before any Court, Tribunal or authority. In<\/p>\n
View of the fact that possession had been taken much<\/p>\n
(‘3<\/p>\n
32<\/span><\/p>\n
in contravention of Section 23 of the Act. Ultimately, the
\nWrit Petition was dismissed and the said order was not
\nchallenged. Therefore, it is not now again open<\/p>\n
appellants to question the very same order  _<\/p>\n
Petition also. Therefore, the challenge to  V. <\/p>\n
this Writ Petition is not competentpasfthe
\nsuffered an adverse order inrespect” ofltliisg  *
\norder AnneXure–F’, in the earlierV:Wri’t._\u00bb  so far as
\nthe order dated  rjtflw\/_VGovernment as
\nper AnneXuref.Efallotting\ufb02the  in favour of
\n  the said order was not
\nquestioned   “Petition though in the order<\/p>\n
dated _2l.9.l”i-993. 5 [Ann’exure–F, a reference has been made<\/p>\n
‘ Vto An’nexure–E an’d”‘it is only pursuant to Annexure–E,<\/p>\n
  to be passed. From this, it is clear that<\/p>\n
the\u00bb..app’ell.ants. were not aggrieved by the order Annexure —<\/p>\n
 passed by the Government when they \ufb01led the earlier<\/p>\n
  Wrtt,.’..fr”Petition. In fact, their relief in the earlier Writ<\/p>\n
  ..Petition for regularisation of their unauthorised<\/p>\n
V occupation sought against MUDA was based on the notice<\/p>\n
said to have been issued by MUDA admitting that MUDA<\/p>\n
34<\/span><\/p>\n
proceed against the legal representatives of the original
\nowner. However in these proceedings, no reiief can be<\/p>\n
granted in favour of the appeliants against re’s.p:ondent<\/p>\n
Nos. 5 to 8 being the legal representatives <\/p>\n
In view of the above discussion, we .ans\\zvergJpeint'”No,3″int”<\/p>\n
the affirmative. Therefore, there a.re’:no”nierits <\/p>\n
appeal and the appeai is 1iab1eVg:’to_%be\n<\/p>\n
16. Accordingly, we dis_mis:s’g_:the-.appeal;-.. <\/p>\n
EUDGE<\/p>\n
S\ufb01\/4
\n, EUDGE<\/p>\n
. _._…-.4<\/p>\n
V.Rw?’<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court B S Pandith S\/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009 Author: V.Gopalagowda & K.N.Keshavanarayana IN THE HEGH COURT OF KJXRNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2913 DAY OF’ SEPTEMBER 2009 PRESENT: THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE V.GOPALA G1o%Xf1jA.’ E. AND THE HONBLE MR.JUS’I’ICE K.N7;JEESTmTANARA%YANA7′ W.A.NO.331 1[\/2005′{U’L.(_i1 BETWEEN: 1 […]<\/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-223017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB S Pandith S\/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B S Pandith S\/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-20T20:55:16+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\\\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B S Pandith S\\\/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-20T20:55:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1574,\"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\\\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009\",\"name\":\"B S Pandith S\\\/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-20T20:55:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B S Pandith S\\\/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B S Pandith S\/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B S Pandith S\/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-20T20:55:16+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\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B S Pandith S\/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-20T20:55:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009"},"wordCount":1574,"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\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009","name":"B S Pandith S\/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-20T20:55:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-s-pandith-so-s-s-pandith-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-22-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B S Pandith S\/O S S Pandith vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223017","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=223017"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223017\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}