{"id":245106,"date":"2008-06-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008"},"modified":"2016-04-30T09:24:23","modified_gmt":"2016-04-30T03:54:23","slug":"vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Vaijanath Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Vaijanath Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Ajit J Gunjal<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 53* DAY OF JUNE 2008\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT  E \nwmr PE'I'I'l'ION NO.16502\/2Q05(LI\u00a7)'- 1 A\nBETWEEN : \n\n1 VAIJANAM mo\nS\/QMADHAVRAO PATIL - V .\nAGED ABOUT 49YEARS   \nocc: AGRICULTURE      \nR\/O JYAN'I'H1,'rQ BHl=\u00a7LKI;?\" _ _  '\nDISTBIDAR. .- \" \n\n2 SHIVARAYA  ....     \nS\/0.APIf*A RAO~?,A3'iL':_ _ \nAGED ABOUT 55\u00ab\u00a2EERs _ 'V  \nocc; AGRICULTURE'.    \nR\/O SHAMBELLI TELU'x'A:mA9\nDIS'l'.BIDAR\"~, ' -  \n3  BABUFRAO'  ..... ..\n \"3\/AO\"BHE\u00bbEMRA0 PATI\n AGE.'--I)_ A5011'? Essmans\n 00\u00a2: \ufb01G.RiCUL'P13R.E\nR\/_O' \u00a3\u00a7\u00a7iAii'4!2\u00bb_kKAI3\"\u00a3'ALUK BHALKI\nDIST. BIDAR' ~ ;_ \n\n E ',As1~1oK..  ,,\n\" \" -~ .. \" -- ._ S\/AoT.BHI1s.g.. RAG PATIL\n' .fAGEI)._ABOU'I' 42 YEARS\n 'Qcc; AGRICULTURE\n we CHIMAKAD, TQ. BIDAR\n\"  133533210'? BIDAR\n CHANNAPPA\n\" S\/0.HAWAG\u00a7 RAG PATH.\nAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS\nocc: AGRICULTURE\nR\/O GAD! LEPPALGA\n\n {:1\n\n \n\n\n\n(A)\n\n(B)\n\n{  A\n\nT  \" 'BUSINESS, R\/C) BIDAR.\n\nTALUK BHALKI\nDES'? BEDAR\n\nKALAWATI\n\nW\/O MANIKRAO PATIL   \nAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS I\n\nOCC: AGRICULTURE AND\n\nMEDICAL PRACFYFIONER\n\nR\/O BAGDAL 'I'Q BIDAR\n\nDIST BIDAR\n\nGURUMATH RAO  .\ns\/0 HAWAGI RAO PATIL' _ ._ .\nSINCE DEAD BY ms ms  ~  *\n\nSI-HVAKUMAR  \nS\/0GURUMATH\u00ab\u00a7?A0.PAT1L_.   ~ :\nAGEDABOUT2:3YiEiARS_  _  ' \nocc: AGRIC!J'L'E'\"U.R'E      '\nR\/O GAD\u00a7HIPPAi\u00a7_Gg;I. \" \u00bb _  '_ \"\n\nTQ IBHALBZL. DIs.T.si--DAR ' \n\nSA'I'HISH ._ V V.   _   ' -\ns\/0 GUR\u00a5JMA'i'I-i .RAc>\"~:.=A'i'3_;_. \nAGED ABOUT22 YEARS' _ \nocc: AGRICULTURE-__ ' *\n\nR\/O GFxDIHIPPARGA'\n\n , Q_ mgaapgz, DIST.i\u00a7IDA.R.v\n\n3? ED AZiM.(}\u00a7D\u00a7.N\n\n D_S]'0_S\"\u00a3ED._\u00a7SMAiL'.,\n\nAGED ABOUT 55 YEARS\noer): AGRECULTURE\nANDMEDHAMC\n\n'DR\/O BiDAR FROPER\n\n ..}M\"A &'1'I'AR ABID\n- 'SIOM-LA. KI-IADER\n.  AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS\n\nOGC: AGRICULUTRE AND\n.. .PE'I'I'lImERS\n\n(By Sri.B.C.Muddappa, Adv.)\n\n\n\nAND :\n\nI THE STATE OF' KARNATAKA\nBY ITS SECRETARY\nREVENUE DEPARTMENT\nVIDHANA SOUDHA   \nBANGALORE I\n\n2 THE LAND TRIBUNAL\n\nBIDAR TALUK, BIDAR =\nDIST BIDAI2, REPRESENTED\n\nBY ITS CHAIRMAN -\n\nTHE ASSISTANT'  . \nCOMMISSIONER BIDAR  \u00ab. 5\n\n3 THE TAHASILDAR _ .\nBIEAR TALUK, BIEZIAR   -- \nDIS'I'.BIDAR    I\n\n4 sM'r.sYEDA'xsI_AT00'r;     *\nmo SYED s;iAHA MA.EiAMO{OD  \nHUSSAl--N--,-AGED AE3;_0U'l'-75.YEA'RS.... \n0-cc; IaIousI::;~II::3LD,I:I.2\/o NOORKHAN\nTALIM;v..CH.\ufb02TAPUR',-\u00bbBEDAF-2,   I ...RESPONDEN'I'S\n\n(By sri.S';Z,A.K\ufb01m\u00a7\u00e9:\u00a7hi,.:_'AGA for R1 to R3,\n.3ri:P.S.'Ee\u00a3a11ju11ath 85\n '-'.S1ji:H._C.S1IivaraE1lJ, Advs. for R4)\n\n0 0\n\n  'fI1I\u00e9 WEI? I>I\u00a7ifI\u00b0IfI\u20acIoN IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND\n227 0:\u00bb THE CQNSBITUTION or INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO\n\n VQUASH T131; ORDER m'.9-5.2005 PASSED BY R-2 VIBE ANNII'.\n\n  THIS V9'RI'F PETYFION comma on FOR HEARING, THIS\n\nV   'i._\"'DEs'f;'1'HE\"COUi?'T MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n\n\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
The petitioners are questioning the order <\/p>\n
by the 2116′ respondent, a copy of which is      _<\/p>\n
Anncxure ‘T’ and also has sought\ufb02mfor     <\/p>\n
mandamus to respondents 1 to 3 to   <\/p>\n
in the Record of Rights m\ufb01o\ufb01gg   Sy.I\u20acoV}6j?:\/_V1VVV 5
\nmeasuring 5 acres 8 guntas of
\nBidar, District Bidar, Which”io’ of the<\/p>\n
order produced at An\u00a71oxuro- “”‘i””\u00bb.– if: ,,  d K<\/p>\n
2. Thefaczts i’xV’fi*r;isf:.1._1_:A:’a1fc’:’ for the disposal of
\n{his writ petitidon  s=;1mm:’  as follows:
\n The”  is Sy.No.67, which measures<\/p>\n
  total. It is an Inam land. One<\/p>\n
 “i3ieg11m was a tenant of the said<\/p>\n
    application for gent of occupancy<\/p>\n
  Vvfhc Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams)<\/p>\n
 an extent of 6 acms and 17 guntas was<\/p>\n
  in her favour. The nenaaining extant of 12 acres %<\/p>\n
{v<\/p>\n
and odd also was wanted in favour <\/p>\n
Smt.Waheedunnisa Begum pursuant to  ‘t E   _<\/p>\n
dated 20.02.1962. The 46: respondettt  v’:”  <\/p>\n
certain interest questions the order
\nSpecial Deputy Commissioner
\nMysore Revenue Appellate
\nappeal was allowed and   the Special
\nDeputy Commissiotzetf.   “order at
\nAnnexure ‘C’,      for
\noonfxrmatiotl V ”  was rejected.
\n1ncidentan\u00a7, it   the said order has
\nbecome \ufb01nal.’  <\/p>\n
3. to ‘E’ dated 11.10.1965,<\/p>\n
 sold the entire extent of 18<\/p>\n
  17′-4.gtu;tas};1iTfavour of one John Thomas. The said’<\/p>\n
  nisa Begum re-purchased the entire<\/p>\n
 Sy.No.67 pursuant to a sale deed dated<\/p>\n
 ‘VT(}.’\u00a7i3u;’1-\u00bb1.*i971, a copy of which is produced at Annexure<\/p>\n
 Incidentally, it is to be noticed that pursuant to<\/p>\n
HAI1nexure ‘G’ dated 23.03.1978 Smtwaheedimnisa \ufb02<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
.{<\/p>\n
-5-<\/span><\/p>\n
Begum, respondent No.4-Saida Khatoon and <\/p>\n
Sagrunnissa Begum sold an extent of 8 acres 15  E   _<\/p>\n
in favour of one Smt. Uma Bai, W\/oeagoji. Am:5\u00ab:; _ V’: d  <\/p>\n
have also sold an extent of 6 acres   <\/p>\n
Housing Co-operative Society  a
\ndated 24.05.1977, copy  of    at
\nAxmexure ‘H’. All the  2 acres 1
\ngunta in favour of   Abdul
\nGaffar pursuapt   deed dated
\n23.03. 1973,  at Annexure ‘J’.
\nAnother exfent– of  was sold by the three
\ni.e.,   ‘respondent No.4 and
\n   of one Mohd.Abdu1 Samad
\nSiddidiie .. .._to a registered sale deed dated<\/p>\n
 e.__23.03.1\ufb029’78,   erhich is produced at Annexure ‘K’.<\/p>\n
_  have purchased an extent of 5 acres 8<\/p>\n
 I dpursuant to a registered sale deed dated<\/p>\n
 dec’cToc9′,*o9.d;:.93s from Smt.Uma Bai, w’\/o.Ieajoj1, copy of<\/p>\n
 is produced at Annexure ‘P’. \/\/g<\/p>\n
X<\/p>\n
4. Respondent No.4 \ufb01led an applicatwn for <\/p>\n
of oocupaxmy rights in Farm Na. 1 undw Certain   A’ %<\/p>\n
Abolition Act, 1977 to the extent ca’ 5 acrw  <\/p>\n
The said applimtion is datw f} \u00e9;   – T <\/p>\n
which is produced at Ammxure ‘S’.-   3<\/p>\n
is \ufb01led by respondent Na’! in
\n77A of the Karnataka Land  1998.
\nThe Land Tribunai  up”  Kiri.’ the 4*!’<\/p>\n
mspondmt fer    Foam No. 1<\/span><\/p>\n
‘ and held  mg }is entitled fur<\/p>\n
con\ufb01z-matiim oi’ .\u00a7:~ig11t.\ufb01$. Heme, ganted the
\nsaid appiicaf.ii:13_.”    pamed by tm Land<\/p>\n
  The said order is mapugaed<\/p>\n
 :vLA;\u00a7a\u00a7f.B.C.Muddappa and Mxushivaramu,<\/p>\n
_   cbugisel a%1’i13g=- for the contostmg- ‘ – mam’ ‘
\n  \ufb01at these are the undisputed facts.<\/p>\n
 _ 6. Mr.B.C.Mudda\u00a7m, learned \u00abcomma! appearing<\/p>\n
  fur the pet.itionm’wou-id sabmit that the appiim\ufb01on \ufb02ied<\/p>\n
@\u00bb<\/p>\n
.3-\n<\/p>\n
by respondent No.4 in Form No.1 under Section 11′<\/p>\n
Certam Inams Abolition Act is barred by     A’<\/p>\n
inasmuch as the last date for fxlingof    \u00abV
\nwas 31.03.1991. He further su1V)m.it\u00a7’.f;’1i-ofirl
\nthe application in Form tzndof
\ncannot be considered by the as
\nunder Section 77A of     Deputy
\nCommissioner     to
\nadjudicate the    in Form No. 7A.<\/p>\n
He rurmer sub1\u00a7;::\u00a7  %%or Rights for the
\nrelevant    is ix; the name<\/p>\n
of the  ‘He  submits that the 4″!
\n iiioviug soidher interest in Sy.No.67 could<\/p>\n
not ‘h.a\u00a7ro  in Form No.7A. He further<\/p>\n
  of the petitioner in Form No.1 is<\/p>\n
‘ ”   res judicata inasmuch as her claim for<\/p>\n
  right was rejected earlier.<\/p>\n
  Mr.H.C.S’hivaramu, learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
 for respondent No.4 submits that a suit was \ufb01led in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.164\/2000 for declaration of title and all other<\/p>\n
-19 _
\nof the petitioners appear in the Record of Rights. .<\/p>\n
Having regard to the fact that the petitioners axe<\/p>\n
interested persons, they ought to have hem’; it    ~<\/p>\n
the proceedings. In fact the only contesting party i     it  it<\/p>\n
the Land Tribunal was State. Indeed  7-1′<\/p>\n
ought to have been made parties
\nthey should have been noti\ufb01ed ;bei’o’t’e”‘th_e i\ufb01ipugned
\norder was passed. Thus,   is in<\/p>\n
violation of the ;Prm’ gazes ofnatuma jf  <\/p>\n
9. In  __ (.’ourt would have set-
\naside the order  the  and remitted the
\nmatter to. LaI1i:i–  for fresh disposal, but<\/p>\n
  would be served by remitting<\/p>\n
 the   Tribunal for the following<\/p>\n
 reasons:\n<\/p>\n
<   It tiotwsin dispute that the Land in question is an<\/p>\n
  —   It is to be noticed that at one point of time,<\/p>\n
h   ‘  Begum claimed that she is a tenant<\/p>\n
  the entire extent. Initially her claim was granted by<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
the Special Deputy Commissioner, (Inams) pursuant to w
\n\/..’<\/p>\n
two orders. But however, the said onder was quest:’:onedg’–.__<\/p>\n
by the 4&1 respondent and the Revenue  <\/p>\n
Tribunal set-aside the order and remitting the      M<\/p>\n
After remand, the claim of the 4*?”
\nrejected, which has attained a
\nnecessarily mean that her claim   k
\nrights is rejected
\nAnnexure ‘C’. What; is   ‘die enthe<\/p>\n
extent of land hag    be in its<\/p>\n
entirety, but   to various sale
\ndeeds, wmchare  Indeed, it is to be
\nnoticed   ‘.’3tS-.  Veespondent has joined
\n BeguAAii*e;s”‘we\ufb02 as Saglrrunisa Begum in<\/p>\n
 deeds on various occasions. In so far<\/p>\n
  the   is concerned, the petitioner has<\/p>\n
‘ ”  extent of 5 acres 8 guntas from Smt.Uma<\/p>\n
 to a registered sale deed dated<\/p>\n
 “e.\u20ac}S3.99.._.i988.\n<\/p>\n
,1-gspondent No.4 and Sagirunnisa Begum sold an extet1t\ufb02(<\/p>\n
10. In the first instance, Waheedunnisa Begum,<\/p>\n
9″\n<\/p>\n
of 8 acres 15 guntas on 23.03.1978 and the <\/p>\n
have purchased a por\ufb01on of it in the year 1988. It is A’ <\/p>\n
be noticed that the 4th respondent is a  <\/p>\n
has joined the mmaining two in   ‘V: <\/p>\n
Whatever title she had in the     <\/p>\n
transferred in favour of the
\nthat the 4’-“h respondent can
\nexecuting the sale  iI1:.fave-\u00a31:  Bai, no
\nrecords are     ‘She
\ncontinued   which would
\nentitle her {to   ‘rights under Certain<\/p>\n
Inams Abo1itioz’1,g;ct.  f:9.L*!:\ufb01_’1Wc5sponde11t No.4 has lost<\/p>\n
  the sale deed in favour of<\/p>\n
11e”‘~..The ‘  question would be whether the<\/p>\n
 wirlrlich is filed under Sec\ufb01on 11 of<\/p>\n
Certain {name Aboliton Act, 1977 is within<\/p>\n
 appreciate this eozntention Section 11 of the<\/p>\n
 is required to be looked into. Section 1} of the Act<\/p>\n
of 1977 would read as under: \/\ufb02
\n\/4’,<\/p>\n
-13..\n<\/p>\n
“Procedure for registration as an
\nocctqmnt~–(1)Everyperscn entitledtcbe _
\nregistered as an occupant under this Act <\/p>\n
constituted under the Karwnatalieezgna .; .
\nReform Aa, 1961 on or before (sis;   e  %
\n1984). Such application she\u00a3\u00a7”~\u00a32e
\nofby the Tribunal as grit is
\nmadeunderthe   _
\n(Provided that
\ninamdar  h\u00e9jI_e!er.v..of._1eij;.m\u00e9’:\u00a3cf”ir:am
\nshall    er before
\nthe 31st    shau
\nbe decided key em,  qfter issuing
\n *  \u00bb–  the concerned
\n‘   held in manner as may be<\/p>\n
 A  e<\/p>\n
 Section 11 would indicate that<\/p>\n
:v..i:c_itial1y,  lest date for filing of the application in<\/p>\n
  to claim occupancy right under the said Act<\/p>\n
.   March 1984. Thexeatter, the time was being<\/p>\n
 ” -extended and \ufb01nally, the last date to \ufb01le the application<\/p>\n
\ufb02<\/p>\n
was on or before 31′” March 1991. Incidentally, it is <\/p>\n
be noticed that if an application is filed -. <\/p>\n
stipulated time, the same is requJred’ to be  V’   M<\/p>\n
by the Land Tribunal having   <\/p>\n
contained under the Land Reforms A\u00a2t;, aut
\nthe question is whether the app1i\u00a7a{i5onVVf\ufb02\u00e9d-V.  ‘
\nrespondent is within  for
\ngrant of   \ufb02ed on
\n26.06.1998. A   clearly
\nindicate    Certain
\nInams K   Rale 5 of the Rules,
\nwhich  V\u00e9icc\ufb01on 1 1 of the Act. A
\nmIf’11sa1v,. the  amen is dated 26.06.1998<\/p>\n
  the said application is \ufb01led beyond<\/p>\n
  \ufb01le   under Section 11 of the<\/p>\n
_   the said application is beyond time<\/p>\n
\u00bbr,:kVn’11dA  termed as barred by statute.<\/p>\n
    In so far as Form No.7A is conccmcd, which is<\/p>\n
  under Sub–Rule(l) of Rule 26(c) and under Section<\/p>\n
 ’77A of the Act, it is to be noticed that the Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
\ufb01r<\/p>\n
-15..\n<\/p>\n
does not have jurisdiction to entertain the said:<\/p>\n
application. Incidentally, it is to be noticed ft’: {T   _<\/p>\n
applica\ufb01on, which is sought to be     u  <\/p>\n
Land Tribunal is the one which is  <\/p>\n
No.1. Be that as it may,  <\/p>\n
\ufb01led under Section 77A or me tLaed*e\u00a2-minus
\nAct, I am of the View   has no<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to   <\/p>\n
13.   that both the
\ncontentionist  counsel for the
\npetitioner;  tov’  inamuch as the
\n is  statutory period and the 41%<\/p>\n
__lost all her rights pmeuant to the<\/p>\n
 e.___order’  Special Deputy Commissioner
\n under  {name a h’  Aboliton Act and that having aIta1ned’<\/p>\n
  she having joined Waheedunnisa Begum<\/p>\n
  H ‘sa Begum in executing the sale deed in<\/p>\n
   of the petitioner’s vendor, I am of the View that<\/p>\n
  the impugmd order passed by the Land Tribunal at<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
-15..\n<\/p>\n
Annexure ‘T’ cannot be sustained. Consequently, <\/p>\n
following order is passed:\n<\/p>\n
Petition stands allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Annexure “1” stands quashed.<\/p>\n
14. Rule is issued and made’ a1\u00a5\u00a7ol}1te;'”   <\/p>\n
15. Mr.s.z.A.Khur\u00a2sh:i, ‘   Q  Addi\ufb01onal
\nGovernment    is<\/p>\n
permitted to tile   four weeks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Vaijanath Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2008 Author: Ajit J Gunjal IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 53* DAY OF JUNE 2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT E wmr PE’I’I’l’ION NO.16502\/2Q05(LI\u00a7)’- 1 A BETWEEN : 1 VAIJANAM mo S\/QMADHAVRAO PATIL – V […]<\/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-245106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVaijanath Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2008 - 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\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vaijanath Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-30T03:54:23+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\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vaijanath Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-30T03:54:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1512,\"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\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Vaijanath Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-30T03:54:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vaijanath Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Vaijanath Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2008 - 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\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vaijanath Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-30T03:54:23+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\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vaijanath Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-30T03:54:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008"},"wordCount":1512,"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\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008","name":"Vaijanath Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-30T03:54:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaijanath-rao-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vaijanath Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2008"}]},{"@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\/245106","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=245106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}