{"id":231756,"date":"2010-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-19T19:00:20","modified_gmt":"2015-04-19T13:30:20","slug":"b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"B C Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
B C Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: V.G.Sabhahit And B.Manohar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BAN\n\nDATED THIS THE 9,02 TH DAY or ocT0BE11_....,\"2bV\"1\u00e9i'\u00bbVJ.A. K\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICIS>A'V';G..&S1'1 B}{IA I*x;vET\u00a3'   \n\nAND\nTHE HoN'BLI: MR.JUsT1cz~:L E,   \n\nWRIT APPEAL 1%.i310'5\/2002(viv..i%+.fiEs)\n\nBETWEEN :\n\n1. 13.0. Chandraj\ufb01pa; _ \u00a7 \nAged about!43 ye':-a:1\"s. K  \"\" \"\n\n2. HR. Visha.1ai.:$:harri'maV '_  *\nW\/053*; Qfj;'ar1(f:'\u00a3.;ap;ja..\u00bb \nAged about  yjealfs   . \n\n3. B.C. Gcvgfha ' ._ .A _ \nD\/0. B.C;--..Ch.and1'appa\u00ab...\nAged about 2.SVy'ea1's \n\n_ A AI]' a1\u00a5\u00e9'A1'eVS}'.di11g  14, E Cross Kirloskar Colony,\n' {PO31..Qf\ufb01C'C._ROa7d, Mahalakshmipuram, Ba11ga1ore.86.\n\n... APPELLAN TS\n\n (By Sn:  shekar Shetty, AdV.,]\n\n\n\nAND :\n\n1 . State Of I{arI1aiaka\nBy its Reveime Secretary\nVidhana Soudha. BE'LI1gE11OI'\u20ac'\"O1\n\n2. The ASS1. Commissioner\nBangalore Sub division. Bangalore\n\n3. The AdDTiI1iStrat.O1',\nPeenya Group Panchayat.\nBangalore North Taluk.  _\n\n4. Laxman Uchclaai.\n\nAged about 58 years,\n8\/0. A. Veerappa,  \nN. 10\/106. I CI-osst\u00bb :5 _ .  ;\n11 Stage. Kirloskar CO10ny,\"j' '\nMa}Ia1axn1ipurarrl..V.~'~  .  -\nBangalore: \u00e9i-'~6_  V  Vf\n\n  .   RESPONDENT5<\/pre>\n
IP.y”S’irI’A:.:S,.  for R1–R3. M\/S. Holla
\n&7.Ho1_l2L  for __ — ~<\/p>\n
‘ITIIS=jwRIT__ AAPPEAL PILED U\/S 4 OF THE
\nKAi~<I'\\U–\\_TAKA'-\u00bbEi1G'I-i COURT ACT PRAYING To SET ASIDE
\n'i'H'};?.. _()RI')I+ZR" -I2ASSEI) IN THE WRIT PETITION<\/p>\n
 ,NoI3sI"1I"\/*~1_993 DATED 13-2-2002 AND ALSO SETASIDE
\n\u00bb _AN.NEXURZF1;  _'G' TO WP. PASSED BY SECOND<\/p>\n
'I._zESPONiDE.NTi.IN V.P.C. APPEAL NO.4\/1993-94 DATED 9-<\/p>\n
" 99-1.993;\n<\/p>\n
 ‘l”‘iI’I’IS’AP’P’EAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
\nPOR”OR_DI:\u00ab:RS AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT<\/p>\n
A  “GE JU’DoEIvIENT THIS DAY SABHAHIT J, DELIVERED
\n _ TI’_I\u00bbiE* P’OLI.OwINo:\n<\/p>\n
J U!) GMENT<\/p>\n
This appeal is fiied by the petitioner Nos. 1 t,Q””3p in<\/p>\n
W P N0.381i1\/1993 being aggrieved by <\/p>\n
13.2.2002. wherein the iearned Single <\/p>\n
Court has deeiined to interfere   <\/p>\n
the second respondent i1):_W .’P,.’7w <\/p>\n
Commissioner, Bangalore S’L’ib.,:._V’DiVisit5r1, :_uB’ar1galore in
\nVPC Appeal N0.4\/ perhiftnnexure
\n‘G’ to the Writ Petition an_ci_dish\ufb01issehdvVth:ei_Writ Petition.<\/p>\n
2.   of the case Ieachng up to<\/p>\n
 this with=..fe_feret1ce to the rank of the parties in<\/p>\n
  Pettition before the learned Single Judge, are as<\/p>\n
foiiowsz V’ ”\n<\/p>\n
It is the ease of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in the
\nWrit Petition that first petitioner is the husband of<\/p>\n
second pet:itioner and third petitioner <\/p>\n
daughter. First petitioner purchased <\/p>\n
under sale deed dt.26.8.1.987 from <\/p>\n
Varnan Naika as per Annexure ‘A7 to”t~he1Writ.–‘Peti.ti–on{.i<\/p>\n
Second petitioner acquired “sit’e._No.A1’4Vas per 19_iI1’E1\u20acIfl1I’\u20ac * V<\/p>\n
‘B’ to the Writ Petition on d.i_s;’s’o11;:tion.’oi” ~.partnership
\ndeed and site No.14- Akfas ..:s:ec_ond petitioner
\nby Ma1leswararn:”‘f’ailo;’iVng’ ‘ tive-.2 Society Limited
\nas per   W’ri_t”Petition. Thus site Nos.
\n13, I4  .14-AV aVtfee_iad}iace.:1t to each other. altogether<\/p>\n
irieasuriiig d\u00b0i:Q_O”X5’4’,h=_ sittiated at Laggere village in<\/p>\n
 B\u20aci1’1\u00a7{&l}01’\u20ac district. First and<\/p>\n
‘s.e’eo_IidA _peti’tiio:_1ers constructed the ground \ufb02oor after<\/p>\n
obtai\u00e9ning . _” the permission Licence from the<\/p>\n
3″”\u00ab\u00ab._’VAdministrator of the Viilage Panchayath. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
\u00ab  e:.t.i1e3r.1e21sed the open terrace of the Ist floor to the third<\/p>\n
petitioner M daughter of first and second petitioner to<\/p>\n
construct: the 1st. \ufb02oor, 2″‘ \ufb02oor and the 2″” \ufb02oor”—as a<\/p>\n
x<\/p>\n
Kalyana Maratapa as per Annexure ‘D’ <\/p>\n
Thereaft.er. the third petitioner gave power__oi’..at,to1=neyto _& <\/p>\n
first petitio’ne1″. Plan was sanction for the”\u00abco’nstru.ctio’n of<\/p>\n
the Kaiyana Mantapa and;I._.icen'(r–e was aisles o’otai’ned,W<\/p>\n
though it was not necessar3t’t’i’tot’put ti’p.c’o1istr1,;ction in
\nrespect of the lease  petitioner in the
\narea rneasuring 60’X5Q*_   itheav”1\\.:’..’CrV’oss. Kirlosker<\/p>\n
Colony, pf   ti}-‘}o’aCi:, Banga1ore–86.<\/p>\n
Cor1st1’t1tctiorj;i:,of  I<.a1"yana."'ivia'ntapa was undertaken
\nas perzthe.san-ctior;Vand Licence. Respondent Nos.<\/p>\n
4 and 5  VW3rit:"vPeti.ti0n and another petitioner by<\/p>\n
 %M.N~.C. Ij19s""beir1;g aggrieved by the grant of the<\/p>\n
 and Licence cit. 10.6.1992 for<\/p>\n
con!st,rL1c.tio\u00a7.1,-1'of Kalyana iVIantapa, filed W P No.9348\/93<\/p>\n
on thev\ufb01le of this Court and the said Writ Petition was<\/p>\n
 of at the stage Wreliminary hearing by<\/p>\n
holding tliat effective remedy is provided _i,ii1de1*<\/p>\n
SeC.58(4} of the Kariiataka Village Panchayats <\/p>\n
_(.' <\/p>\n
Boards Act. 1959 [hereinafter called as '<\/p>\n
iQl'" K<\/p>\n
brevity} and the petitioners have-iarr.alte'rneitive'4_reInedj#g<\/p>\n
of filing the appeal before the  <\/p>\n
challenging the very sanctioii..pia.n iiriputgneldvf Writ
\nPetition and it: is equally open""to'Vp_:thVe-\u00bb_petitiori'ersVito seek
\nappropriate interim  being the
\nposition, and   and
\nefficacious     hrippeai. This Court
\ndeclined  jurisdiction of
\nthis Court   of the Writ Petition
\nby observing    is filed within a period of
\ntivo\u00ab–.wee'I;s   order 1.6)., 1.4.  same<\/p>\n
i.  of on merits regardless of the<\/p>\n
1'=~liI1'1ita[i(J..l;41 a11d.all;.\u00abtfhe contentions are kept open.<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
3'. It is the further case of the petitioners that<\/p>\n
in the meanwhile, after the dismissal of <\/p>\n
Petition, a person was set up for fiiing the.–A4s:ni1:,.T:"Since "<\/p>\n
no interim order could be obtained in the st1it,'4th'e__s.ui't.,<\/p>\n
was not pursued and thereafter,t"Or:igi1'ial St;it~.was .fiie'dV._<\/p>\n
in 0.5. No.2712\/93 by  petvitioneri the 'V V<\/p>\n
third respondent in   'and"V3inte1'irn
\ninjunction was  respondent.\n<\/p>\n
from interfering viwithw  the Kalyana
\nMantapa   Sec.2OO of the
\n1959  Assistan_t.'”Commissioner — second
\nrespondent.’_herein.” as V.P.C. Appea1~4\/93~94<\/p>\n
and an 1’nte1’~.i1r1 order’–._of’~’stay of the sanction order was<\/p>\n
 ~grantedgpinitiaily in”‘ti”ie said appeal. Thereafter an order<\/p>\n
injtinctioii granted in OS. No.2712\/1993<\/p>\n
was.__’p1*odui:-;’eVdi and interim order stood Vacated. The<\/p>\n
{“2-‘..__”second”respondent passed the finai order as per<\/p>\n
   ‘G’ on 9.9.1993 which reads as foilows:<\/p>\n
“=.\\9;3,’E’:i<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
“For the reasons stated above, under<\/p>\n
sectionsm 53. 54, 60 and (X) of the Ka.rnai.al_<__a.<\/p>\n
Panchayath and Local Bodies Act, l9594,.._V[~l_]y_<\/p>\n
cancelled the licence which was said to be.~i~ss_ue'd  , A'<\/p>\n
to construct IS'-, 2"'? and 31"' floor over site' 3<\/p>\n
and 14 of Laggeri village, deciding\u00e9thatdityd\u00e9  <\/p>\n
issued according to rules.\n<\/p>\n
[2] And also caiicelled theliiience’dvgra\u00e9nted u<\/p>\n
by the Peenya grama Panchayath~ .i_n”Aut\u00e9ivo1;irVVV0f
\nKumari Geetha, torfun thee-Ktalyana Mar1t\u00bbap..5\u00a7<\/p>\n
(3)   sill-7e,enya grama
\nPanchayath__to  building
\nConstructed”e1j’r:roai_chi11:g  feet road at
\nthe fgf and 14 under
\nsection  Grama Panchayath
\nand ‘Local  it ”\n<\/p>\n
  vii’;  of the business run1’1i1’ig<\/p>\n
  LJsha”?ivm.l3\u00abe1’s, as no already the Pollution<\/p>\n
,  taken action, hence this authority<\/p>\n
 not found suitable, therefore. the<\/p>\n
llgr\u00e9tmzl Panchayath about: the pollution<\/p>\n
cor~1t.rel matter, can take \ufb01nal decision and after<\/p>\n
it “the Plantthayatih can take action by cancelling the<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
licence not to cause trouble to general public or<\/p>\n
it can renew t.he said licence.” .\n<\/p>\n
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the’…seco~:_1d<\/p>\n
respondent on 9.9.1993 as referred to <\/p>\n
Petition was filed by the petitaioiiers 1 to”3″ 9″‘<\/p>\n
Petition contending that the Assistant l\ufb02oniniisslionleri<\/p>\n
had no Jurisdiction to e1″l.i.\u20ac~:?..t'<1in""tTy1t'i _&il?De?l1'~ .u1'1der = 9'<\/p>\n
Sec.200 of the 1959 Act. It .contended.that\u00a7 though
\n1983 Act namely. Karha.taiai\u00a7–'pziii5;;l_ ..l;':'arishads, Taluk
\nPanchayats, Saini._this:;Adill\/laridal'-.lParichaytath and Nyaya<\/p>\n
Panchayats  come into force, the said Act
\nwas not given' e.ffe(,\u00bb–t::l""_tol in Bangalore District by<\/p>\n
notification dt.~ .._Vl:iv21-1'5 :August 1985 and the area in<\/p>\n
 .qiiestioVnwi.wais'*~-goveriied by the repealed Act, 1959 and<\/p>\n
  not applicable. No appeal can be<\/p>\n
_p entelrtairied  the second respondent. against the order<\/p>\n
 bypassed  the Administrator as appeal can be filed only<\/p>\n
la<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
before the I_)eputy Commissioner and the administrator
\nhad no jurisdiction. No appeal lies against the order<\/p>\n
passed by the Administrator. It was also covntend.ed<\/p>\n
that the order has not been passed <\/p>\n
opportunity to the petit.ionei’s__t.o__ s’ubsta1’1–tiate’w  if<\/p>\n
Contention and that the appe1′:iat.ef_”aiiithiorityil <\/p>\n
passed orders in aeco1’danCe__With law.’ It_isv.aVei*’1*ed”that ” V<\/p>\n
kalayana mantapa was oon,s:t’ruet;ed after obtaining
\nsanction plan and Lieenee in  with Iaw and
\nthere is no eneroa._chrr1ent;  is pending before the
\nCivil Cv:’;’i,ii*’i;;A_;Therefoi*e’;~,VVt-he  passed by the second
\nrespoiideaiitwas  vt.:di”be.–~set aside. Respondent Nos.<\/p>\n
1 to 4} didfiaot file. air_1_y'”objeetion statement. However,<\/p>\n
 xNo.S”f1’ied the objection staternerit to the<\/p>\n
 AVa\\”(ei*ring that the averments made in the<\/p>\n
writ__ petveit;i0″n, ‘was false, frivolous. Vexatious and not<\/p>\n
 ~  “~mai11tai.nabie either in law or on facts. The order passed<\/p>\n
    second respondent in the V P C No.4\/93434 (it.<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
9.9.93 produced at Annexure ‘G’ to the Writ Petition has<\/p>\n
been passed in accordance with law under 1959 Act<\/p>\n
since 1983 Act: is not applicable to the prope-rt’y_i”–i_n<\/p>\n
question and the second respondent has4″:*poi\\2sfe’:.4S*~  ‘<\/p>\n
suspend execution of orders \u20acfC::’,’ of }??anch’ayats_’an”d.<\/p>\n
Taiuk Board if in his opinion the”\u00abexecu’tior1. \u00a2{1″..ar;y <\/p>\n
or resolution of a panchaj}at:h~.._or Taluk.Boai=d'”‘or”:any it<\/p>\n
other authority or Of!ice1’  Panchayath Taluk
\nBoard or the doing oi”aijyti1i.rig  about to be<\/p>\n
done or being done    Panchayath or<\/p>\n
Taluk ~Board”i;is “‘i?1i1jiiet’;” unulawful or improper or is
\ncausingor.1s’1i.keiji~tovcause injury or annoyance to the<\/p>\n
publicor foiead.  aA’brVe~a:ck1 of peace be may by order in<\/p>\n
“*.,_wi’iting;p_.u11dei’ h’is””‘sigVnature suspend or prohibit the<\/p>\n
  “Notice was given to the writ petitioners<\/p>\n
and \u00e9Lftev1’.heari11g the counsel appearing for the parties,<\/p>\n
 “-second _1’_\u00e9SpOnd\u20acI1f, has passed the order in accordance<\/p>\n
A  “”wii’h_iie1Vv holding that the appeal is rnaintainable and<\/p>\n
1.}<\/p>\n
the Licence for construciiion of kalyana mantapa could<\/p>\n
not have been granted. There is encroachrnent on__ the<\/p>\n
public road and wherefore, the order paSSCd”:Vb:g;””‘*t;F\u00a3\u20ac<\/p>\n
second respondent is in accordance with   u<\/p>\n
not call for iiiterference in the wrif”p’e–ti.tion in _ex’e1’ci’se of<\/p>\n
the writ jurisdiction of this Con_’rt’–_lV_a’ndlisought <\/p>\n
dismissal of the Writ Petition\ufb01\ufb01.\n<\/p>\n
4. The learned considering<\/p>\n
the C0nt\u20acnti0}\ufb01”:’\u00bbf1l;h\u20ac  for the parties<\/p>\n
held that   before the second
\ni~espondent._  ‘:.iiiai11t_\u00a7*[i\ufb02iam.ble as 1983 Act was not<\/p>\n
applicable  the  in question where kalyana<\/p>\n
 is~.situate”d”‘and the same is governed by 1959<\/p>\n
Act,”Whe.i’ei’oi=eQsecond respondent was competent t.o<\/p>\n
enteitairi  revision and after detailed consideration of<\/p>\n
 mat.eAi*ial on record, has rightly held that no Licence<\/p>\n
 j “o’r*.,s_a’nctio11 has been granted for construction of<\/p>\n
kalyana mantapa in a residential area and there is<\/p>\n
encroachment as held by second respondent.<\/p>\n
VVhe1’efore, the o_1’der passed by the second resIp’ofid.ei1t<\/p>\n
is justified and does not call for intert’ere11cefin  V’<\/p>\n
of the writ jurisdiction of this Cotnft <\/p>\n
dismissed the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
order of the learned Singieidddge  Writ it<\/p>\n
Petition this appeal is ,-filed  ij’etitione’r”No’s. 1 to 3<\/p>\n
in the Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
 iiii   learned counsel
\nappearizngii \u00abfor —  and the Government<\/p>\n
AdvoC_a_te  A’for””.1″espo11dent Nos. 1 to 3 and<\/p>\n
“V'”vcou’raseI..j-~.appeariiig “” “for respondent. No.4. Originai<\/p>\n
 ;e:;grdAs._a;;c: vtheappt\u00e9al pertaining to the Case have been<\/p>\n
p1’od.4u.ced  learned Goveihment Advocate.<\/p>\n
W?\n<\/p>\n
14<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
6. Application has also been filed under Order
\nXLI Rule 27 CPC to produce additional documerits for<\/p>\n
eoilsideratioii in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
7. Learned counsel appe’afirig.   fa-pp\u00a211a’nt’se<\/p>\n
has taken us through the provisi’otis*–oif Seoti_ons <\/p>\n
200 of the 1959 Act and alsovi.le:i’he Iiotifieation by A<\/p>\n
the Government, exti}t;1di11g”‘lthe:’ llappiicaljilityl of the
\nprovisions of the  District and<\/p>\n
continuation \u00a7.o’i”\u00ab.tfie .\/–‘\u00a7drnis.i.~istrat’o1f~ submitted that<\/p>\n
second.””fe’spohdenft\u00b0 could notllllhave been entertained
\nappeal or revision’j_i’a1*1d.__lWherefore, the order passed is<\/p>\n
w11o1Iy_Vwit:houV_t jvL117’-isdictioii and o1*de1* has been passed<\/p>\n
affordingv'””o15portuI1ity to the appellants to<\/p>\n
  t.Eje.ir case and the relief that is granted by<\/p>\n
the\u00bb.sec0nd:fesnpondeiit is also beyond the relief that was<\/p>\n
l.”~’\u00ab\u00ab.__l”\u00bbsought  in the Appeal as what was sought for in the<\/p>\n
” ‘appeal was directilig not to inaugurate kalyana<\/p>\n
mi;\n<\/p>\n
‘\ufb01t<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
Planning Act, 1961, is pereniptory, wherein permission<\/p>\n
for land developrnent is mandatory and authoiiiiiyjfoi’<\/p>\n
grant. of Change of land itself is the <\/p>\n
Commissioner under See.95 of the  <\/p>\n
Revenue Act. He has also relied Linen. the d_e:Cisi.Von<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Supreme Court; in thle–Ae’a–se <\/p>\n
SHARMA vs. MANAGING COl\\\/1lI:\\’\/iIfi*1″i<3E, DR- HAR1 RAM too\u00bb
\nEDUCATION) HIGHER vsi3c:o1~}'3i\u00a7Ai\u00a7Yi.sr\u00a7fiooL ms OTHERS
\nreported in (1993) 4 SCv_(v3_1.Q ith-at when there<\/p>\n
is violation of"t}ie;jfirinleipiesgof"n:at–n'1*a.i..justice. the order<\/p>\n
is liable-"to  rernitlted to the authority to
\ndecide in iaiiv. The order is void and<\/p>\n
liable to be. set,vasi\u00e9:!e."~~*"VThe learned counsel further<\/p>\n
   tlh'e"*'fot1rth respondent along with others<\/p>\n
nef:.i\u00a2ici;'i:i7t\u00e9::310.9348\/93 before this High Court to<\/p>\n
caneel thelisanetioiied plan and licence and the same<\/p>\n
 Wearne to_A'be dismissed. Thereafter suit has been filed<\/p>\n
   the second and third respondents by the third<\/p>\n
Wig<\/p>\n
I8<\/p>\n
appellant. herein and order is seized by the Civil Court.<\/p>\n
Wherefore, the order passed by the second i'espoiIdent.<\/p>\n
is liable to be set: aside and appeal may be <\/p>\n
setting aside the order passed by the <\/p>\n
Judge and the order passed <\/p>\n
as per Annexure 'G' to the W1'_i_t Pet'it.io'n.<\/p>\n
9. The learned.”seniT_or ic.o”un_sel\u00abappearir1g for the
\nfourth respondent submitted ffhevsarlction plan and<\/p>\n
Licence is gra__nte}3.\u00bbi’iri.tl1e :’:1arneVo.f’thue”fi’rst petitioner and<\/p>\n
never in “the. _1′:am\u00e9}: of t.l<ie"third'petitioner who according
\nto the V"\ufb01rst._ and 'suecoridllipeititioners, was authorised to<\/p>\n
put up con'sti*ut.:iVi'o11A'rand the authority could not have<\/p>\n
  A.sa11ctioh"pIa11 and Licence for construction<\/p>\n
_ofKalygtnyaivll\/Iari.t,apa1 in a residential area and there is<\/p>\n
 of public road while putting up<\/p>\n
ll."~=.___V'~eonstrti.c_tion of the Kalyana Mantapa. Even though the<\/p>\n
it   Mantapa. is put up in a portion of the property<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
belonging to the first and second petitioners and the<\/p>\n
order passed by the second respondent is based.”–z.1po’n<\/p>\n
the sanction made to the petitioners. To sg.b’etlant:ti.a’t;e<\/p>\n
their case, they had engaged the Couneel  <\/p>\n
Counsel argued the matter before thesec;-ond res-pond*ent.<\/p>\n
and all the Contentions have b\u00a2ent’c\u00a7nsid\u00a2_~;\u00a2d <\/p>\n
order passed by the second resur)onde1it:_ isjiistiified.<\/p>\n
10. Learned senior a’jpi)lE:aring for the<\/p>\n
fourth respondlenlt’ futtliczr in view of the<\/p>\n
fact that\u00b0’ordler t):aSse’d.\u00ab:.i11 Wf’p”No.9348\/93 which was
\ndismiseed on  alternative remedy, it. is not<\/p>\n
open _v to  ._a–ppte._1la1*its herein to contend that<\/p>\n
‘ll’~._21I3’};)\u00e9&1l:((.1’\u20ac\\%1SlOI1HWa’S’lHOE maintainable and appellants<\/p>\n
_ were eeteopped from contending that provisions of<\/p>\n
 A(1l.i:l:l.E$llI10f. applicable. However. Licence and<\/p>\n
 sariction} plan had been granted under the provisions of<\/p>\n
 Act only and not under 1983 Act. as provisions of<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
Sec.’i983 Act was not applicable. to Bangalore District.
\nThe decision relied upon by the learned ttotinsel
\nappearirig for the appellants is not helpful <\/p>\n
the present. case.\n<\/p>\n
1.1. Learned GovernmentdtA.dVocate”ap\u00a7)’earing for”<\/p>\n
the respondent Nos. 1 t.o 3  <\/span><\/p>\n
order passed by the  hast’<\/p>\n
produced the original ifecolrds'<.__pertaini_1f1g_i\u00a7 to the<\/p>\n
proceedings for the <\/p>\n
 'l  =t'h'ee._:l'ea;rned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the appelio__nt2s  that the order passed by the<\/p>\n
 se..co:nC;l__LV' respo1'1tle.n.i.\u00ab is Without jurisdiction. Kalyana<\/p>\n
 l\\\/lant\u00e9i\ufb01ai ~–._out up after obtaining the sanction plan<\/p>\n
and Licenccvll and construct.i011 was not illegal and there<\/p>\n
 is no*en':croacl'1Inent and even assuming that appeal was<\/p>\n
 !1"i2ii'i;1t:ai11able under Sec.2OO of the 1959 Act. the second<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
responcient could not have cancelled the SE1I1Cti()1’1 plan
\nand Licence and he could have only suspended the<\/p>\n
Licence and I’\u20acf(;’.l’1′(“3d the matter to the Con2rnissi0\\1n,e’r_Vt0<\/p>\n
take action in accordaiiee with law. Whe:e\u00a7t’Ore’1’f~–\u00e93}?e:j”_<\/p>\n
assuming that the appeal was inaintairzahle'”=.unVdesr <\/p>\n
Sec.200 of the 1959 Act, the prheeduife <\/p>\n
second respondent is iilegai and ea.nh0Vt sustairied. , *<\/p>\n
Vifherefore, the learned Si11g1e_t:2Jt1_d-ge otjghtivnto have set
\naside the order passedhy _ the  ifespondent which<\/p>\n
is impugned inthis W1’i-t..App-eAa1_  the Writ<\/p>\n
Petitionf  = <\/p>\n
 tWe”}’1aVV.e givieii careful Consideration to the<\/p>\n
‘vV”‘vC01″i-V*.,.(:3Sf1’f;i\u00a3)I1\u00abOf tl1e””‘ie;\u00e9u’ned COul1S\u20ac1 appearing for the<\/p>\n
 e__;_)\u00a2”Lrtti’es se:tit.i1’1ised the material on record.<\/p>\n
I’?1,__A\u00ab* The material on record would eleariy show<\/p>\n
  _?ace0rdi1’1g to the avermeiit made in the Writ<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
Petition. first petitioner purchased site No.13 under
\nregistered sale deed (it. 26.8. E 987 as per Annexure ‘A’ to<\/p>\n
the Writ Petition from Manjunath.Van1an Naik. _ItV_lis_:Pt.he<\/p>\n
further ease of the first and second pet.iti0_n:ers” .<\/p>\n
and second appellants herein that. seeond-:’jap’pell.ant <\/p>\n
acquired site No.14 under Anr;.exLi_’re’iV<\/p>\n
Petition which is a deed ‘pe’1~’ta111in’gV to clil1vsso’lu.t1C~n off’<\/p>\n
partnership and the ;__seco11d…_a:ppelI_anth’Wasp apipartner.
\nUnless there is a sale’ ‘c’1eeti1e._o:,rpi.ari3Ia.V:l_titleconveying the
\nproperty in si.tejNo_. 1-4:: t,I’ie’r:seeond appellant,
\ndissol}1t,i’onw  Pw.o:t1ldPnotVlve0nfer any title. The
\nmaterial. on ,further show that so far as<\/p>\n
site Vl\\lo.14l}\u00b0= CV{):11Ce(;l’ll\u20act:ClV1, which was allotted to the<\/p>\n
 V’  .,seeoncip’appellant’Aby”Ma1leswararn Tailoring Co-operative<\/p>\n
 per Annexure ‘C’ to the Writ. Petition.<\/p>\n
Aeepordirig”tollltlle appellants the total area of Site Nos.<\/p>\n
  1*ilv.;_~l:l1d 1-4i~~A1r1easure 100’X 54′ situated in Laggere<\/p>\n
 -.y*ill.aPg:;’e. Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North taluk. It<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
23<\/span>
\nis the further case of the appellants that after<\/p>\n
c0nsti’1.1cting the g1’ot.1.1iic1 \ufb02oor. wherein the saw Vmill is<\/p>\n
being run. Open terrace of the first \ufb02oor and–\u00bbsec’0nd<\/p>\n
\ufb02oor was leased to the third appe1lant.F.:t0.ipiit. <\/p>\n
C0[lSU’1lCU()I’l of the Kalyana Maiit.7\u00a71p’a1\u00abt1nder.1eaee’dVeed.<\/p>\n
dt. 17.6.1992 as per Annexure  tjqiithe <\/p>\n
Furtlier, the material on re”eQid wouicii  the<\/p>\n
sanction plan and the ‘}.,icen’ce per-.An1’1e\u00a7ns\u00ab. V.-Annexure ‘F’ to the Writ<\/p>\n
Petiti_0_n iii’c:11icii1ig ‘tiv1\u20acV'”(.’.,O11dif.iO11 that the same should<\/p>\n
‘ “=.1’10t\u00ab-.eat.1seaiiy i11c”O1’1Ve1’1ie1’1ce to the public. The Licence<\/p>\n
._.c”0u1VCt-  ‘bue.._\u00e9tjssigi1ed to any other person. In case if<\/p>\n
thetje  necessity to the appellant to obtain Licence<\/p>\n
“from E.1’i’?1}y'” other Dcpartrnent, the same may be taken and<\/p>\n
if’ there is violation of condition, Licence is liable to be<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
cancelled. Genera} Licence for c0nstruCti01’1 has been
\nobtained by first and second appeilants on 10.6.___1992<\/p>\n
and according to them they have put. up Collstr-n'(:ti:’t}–n”‘.*3vf<\/p>\n
the ground floor only and the dispute is <\/p>\n
c0nstr’uct’1on of the Kalyana Mantapa in se’e–E)nd’ .f\u00a3p01%_V V<\/p>\n
and encroachment on the road.\n<\/p>\n
15. There is no.”me1jitt”*inL_:’–th’e_contention of the
\nlearned counsel appesfi_n’g–‘f0;\u00a7’ the’ that the<\/p>\n
appeal\/ f\u20acViSiQ1″z~l:EI’S u   learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge:’tV’ti–ndeefvi,_’  1959 Act was not
\nmaintatnahlet  from the perusal of the<\/p>\n
1nat.er.1’al e114″”1*r.:_eo1t.r_.1″Lliaithe respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in<\/p>\n
 “–#;he”‘:eWri.tePetition’ have filed w P No.9348\/I993 and the<\/p>\n
   of on 1.4.1993 by hoiding that there<\/p>\n
is  temecly of filing an appeai under See.53(4)<\/p>\n
 H Act which is effective and efficacious and it<\/p>\n
” _ ‘i.s”a–ls() open to the writ petitioners to obtain the interim<\/p>\n
F’<\/p>\n
‘W<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
order in t.he said appeal and wherefore, with liberty to
\napproach the appellate authority W the Ass_i__st:aI1t.<\/p>\n
Comniissioner. Writ Petition was disposed of <\/p>\n
direction that the said appeal if filed Xvithilfi’ .<\/p>\n
F<\/p>\n
from the date of the order. the san1’e~s.hal’_1 be tt\u00e9iitsposeiii oi.<\/p>\n
on merits, regardiess of t.he 1imit.\u00b0a.t.iC’.n\u00a7’ <\/p>\n
appeal was filed before t11e_vp4″‘A.ssistVant’ Cornnivit\u00e9sioner. V<\/p>\n
However, it is Clear from the” of tthereeanction
\nplan and Licence, Annte\ufb01ctgrets-.;VE*  that they have<\/p>\n
been granted_.,1;rrcler Siec.  :Wherefore, it is<\/p>\n
not open”   appeilailtuswvto contend that the
\nproceediiigs wast’-\u00bbnot, 4Vn:1air1tai11ab1e before the second
\n1’CSpOI1d\u20ac’\u00a31_t’–: As’:~;ist=a11t”%E;’ornrnissio11e1*. Accordingly. the<\/p>\n
said Cor1te11tfio.11 ofvtthe-1ea1’11ed counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
   rightly rejected by the learned<\/p>\n
 E%j.ng-1_e  So far as the merits of the case is<\/p>\n
t’concer1’Ie.’c’i;.,_itViwsrclear from the perusa} of the material on<\/p>\n
record that.”;t.he1’e is no merit in the contention of the<\/p>\n
‘tag;\n<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the appeilarits that the<\/p>\n
order has been passed in violation of principles of<\/p>\n
natural justice as it is Clear from the order by<\/p>\n
the second respondeiit, as per Annexure ‘G’\u00abl:_f.o.th:ei’  <\/p>\n
Petition that notice was servedlllliipori ‘lthe <\/p>\n
herein. They entered 21ppearance’thi’oiigh ltijeelir <\/p>\n
and after hearing the Couns’e]e,.y:}appea1’ing’for: Mnarties
\nand after affording sufficient.Hopioortunity tollthle parties
\nto substantiate their case\u00bb;  by the<\/p>\n
second 1’espo:1de.rii. Itfgis :;c1Ve:a1″~fr’0ri1\u00bbth.e order passed by<\/p>\n
the  contended that the
\nsite  fall within that Village<\/p>\n
Paraehayatir as abso’l’ut”e power to grant Licence and<\/p>\n
 1)lar1 fal1s'”W’ithin the CDP. Wherefore, the said<\/p>\n
” learned counsel is also liable to be<\/p>\n
i’eje.e,_t,ed.,~  it is clear from the order passed by<\/p>\n
 seeo\ufb01d resporident that it was \ufb01led under See.2OO of<\/p>\n
it   Act. Se(*..2OO of the Act reads as follows:<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
“200. Deputy Commissioner’s power of<\/p>\n
suspending execution of Orders, etc., of<\/p>\n
Panchayats and Taiuk Boards M {1} Except <\/p>\n
respect of eases expressly provided for i_n__’any:\u00a5. <\/p>\n
other provision of this Act, if in the   <\/p>\n
Deputy Commissioner the exe_e1.it,ion ei'”\u00e9Lfiyf_o1’d’er’.V <\/p>\n
or resolution of at Panehayateoi”\n<\/p>\n
any order of any authority erl”oifieerf’.; {:hetl”‘<\/p>\n
Panchayat or ‘I’a1uk  or” “of
\nanything which is yaboutyyite  ‘doI1e,lo’r..’L.S ‘being
\ndone by or on bel’1al:l’f_Ao'{p &.j_y’l?.2ii1e~h:\u00e91y;1t or Taluk
\nBoard, is unjust,   or is
\ncausing, ;~’o1**1!_’i.s :l_ikely.~’  injury or
\nannoya;r1eeVy_’toA:’tvh:e  or is likely to
\nCause,._  ya’nirioyan.ce to the public or to
\nlead to E1 b1’ea_eii:’ot’V_t:hye”peace, he may. by order in<\/p>\n
w1’i_ting,””=Lvinr,1e–1″A’=l1is\u00b0 signature, suspend the<\/p>\n
 or”‘pr..\u00ab3hibii: the doing thereof.\n<\/p>\n
  a Deputy Commissioner makes<\/p>\n
‘5’_’;1I.iy= T”orc’:e”1’v.–“‘under subsection (1), he shall<\/p>\n
A\u00abforthwithA:ferwa1″d to the Commissioner and to<\/p>\n
the llpfllltihaykll, or Taluk Board affected thereby a<\/p>\n
it  of the order, with 21 st.ate.memi of the<\/p>\n
ijgg\ufb01<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
reasons for making it; and the Commissioner
\nmay after such iiiquiry as may be necessary<\/p>\n
rescind or modify the orcier, as he deems fit.”<\/p>\n
18. The leariied Single Judge has p1*oc.e’erV1e\ufb02>Va.oi2 V.
\nthe basis that it was a revision before  1′
\nrespondent; This Court has the<\/p>\n
petitioners in W P No.934t’3\/93 i}e.Q”-.respoh.dent’ <\/p>\n
and 5 in the Writ. Petition. to”‘fi1Ve’i\u00bbappea’1..t1’ri:1Ver 53(4)
\nof the 1959 Act bei’oie_  Covrvrirriissioner.
\nEven the source of   to Sec.53(4}<\/p>\n
of 195y\u00a7’%1A\u00a2te.};pqsce\u00e9oo. it is clear that the<\/p>\n
pI’0C\u20acd1.i1’\u20ac; that  followed in respect of an
\nappea1–. tinder .9e(:;53(?i\u00bb)  the 1959 Act, is different from<\/p>\n
9at’th\u00e9-.t..1\u00a7;’E2t\u00a7edhuife  in respect of appeal filed<\/p>\n
     the 1959 Act.\n<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
1’7. It cannot be denied having regard to [the<\/p>\n
material o11 record that t.he finding of the <\/p>\n
Commissioner on the question of fact thatthe: <\/p>\n
plan and Licence had not been gzrantegdj;<\/p>\n
with law and there is encroachmgento-f_ lpublic\u00bb’r’;-dad zwhiile”<\/p>\n
construction of Kalyana  has llbeelilvljconifinned
\nby the learned Single  We  not any
\nreason to interfat’  1…Il.owever, after
\narriving at   respondent,
\nwould :11: Licence and under
\nSec.20t3–.of*   have ordered for further<\/p>\n
enquiry and.._passed ‘ortlers for demolition in accordance<\/p>\n
  thela’ppe__a_l.’was under Sec. 53 [4] of the 1959<\/p>\n
 and.,if tl1e’appeal was treated under Sec.200 of the<\/p>\n
could have only suspended the Licence<\/p>\n
 re erred the matter to the Commissioner under<\/p>\n
 of the Act as referred to above. It was for the<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
sanction plan and Licence. Wherefore, it is clear that
\nfor the above said reasons, which has been over looked<\/p>\n
by the learned Sirigle Judge as the learned Si11gle_J\u00ab.uld_ge<\/p>\n
has proceeded on the basis that the revisional  ~<\/p>\n
has the power to order demolition. of the”unauthori.se’d ll<\/p>\n
construction by canceling the Libeizitlfe*~and~_proceeded_to:p<\/p>\n
confirm the order passed”lb’yr…the A”secondiv-jre’sp’ondent, ” V<\/p>\n
cannot at all be sustA__ained,A,though.._ the lfinding\u00e9g of the
\nlearned Single Judge  fact about the
\nniaintainabilitydiof tl7_e ‘grant of Licence
\ncontraVry”t’o~  justifi’eld. Wherefore, to that
\nextentfthe..order’p’asse.d”by.~~ the learned Single Judge is<\/p>\n
liable to seij’~asidc’,’\u00abari’d the order passed by the second<\/p>\n
“V”~.respondAe.nI;~. also””‘i’Iable to be set aside, insofar as it<\/p>\n
  procedure to be followed under Sec.\n<\/p>\n
 the Act and pass appropriate orders in<\/p>\n
ll’~v.__l’accorda:1c\u00a7:e with law or if the Assistant commissioner<\/p>\n
  the appeal as one filed under Sec.53{4i\u00bb) of the<\/p>\n
peg ‘<\/p>\n
31<\/span>
\n1959 Act: as per the liberty given to the petitioners in
\nW. P. Ne.9348\/1993, to contend as to why_ the<\/p>\n
Construction of the Kalyana Mantapa coL1ld.\u00abfn.r:’)j’t._V”\u00a7:)e<\/p>\n
demolished and thereafter. pass app1’opria’te  <\/p>\n
accordance with law. in any View'”0f-the-‘matter; it isf,f0″.l:<\/p>\n
the second respondent to pass7Qri:1ers in ._accQrd.ar~1cev._<\/p>\n
with law after giving a tindlirigras to. th:e”‘apl13eal ‘V<\/p>\n
is under sec.2oo of time 195r9’Acj;t l5rci_gndlersscc;53(4) of<\/p>\n
the 1959 Act and thereafterl.l’v–;liass__.aj:\u00a7;\u00a7rVlpriate orders in<\/p>\n
accordance   the..lig’ht”eftheifobservation made<\/p>\n
in the ‘blrder.,:isndeijaendently  being in\ufb02uenced by
\nany of ,made on merits and pass<\/p>\n
further orders’ i411fa(:’c_0rda1’1ce with law. To that extent<\/p>\n
 eAt}16′:c.jdi’d.e;;.” passedl:$y”‘tahe learned Single Judge is liable to<\/p>\n
 Aeenriclilrigly, Writ Appeal is allowed in part. The<\/p>\n
 remitted to the extent of the order passed by<\/p>\n
   secoiad respondent dt.9.9.1993 insofar as it relates<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
32<\/span><\/p>\n
to demolition of (‘.()I’}SU’LlCUO1] of {Z118 Kalyana Mantiapa
\nand eviction ofthe appellants, is set aside and matter is
\nremitted to the second respondent. for pr:1ssir1g ordsfs in
\naccordance with law in the light of the 0bsef\ufb01x’:tt’itii:.s<\/p>\n
made in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     i<\/p>\n
BN8<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court B C Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2010 Author: V.G.Sabhahit And B.Manohar IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BAN DATED THIS THE 9,02 TH DAY or ocT0BE11_….,”2bV”1\u00e9i’\u00bbVJ.A. K PRESENT THE I-ION’BLE MR. JUSTICIS>A’V’;G..&S1’1 B}{IA I*x;vET\u00a3’ AND THE HoN’BLI: MR.JUsT1cz~:L E, WRIT APPEAL 1%.i310’5\/2002(viv..i%+.fiEs) BETWEEN : 1. 13.0. Chandraj\ufb01pa; _ […]<\/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-231756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB C Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 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\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B C Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-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=\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-19T13:30:20+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=\"23 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-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B C Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-19T13:30:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4527,\"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-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010\",\"name\":\"B C Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-19T13:30:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B C Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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 C Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 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\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B C Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-19T13:30:20+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B C Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-19T13:30:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010"},"wordCount":4527,"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-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010","name":"B C Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-19T13:30:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-chandrappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B C Chandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 29 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/231756","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=231756"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231756\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}