{"id":255235,"date":"2010-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-25T04:24:47","modified_gmt":"2018-04-24T22:54:47","slug":"ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ganesha S\/O Pachappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 21 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Ganesha S\/O Pachappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 21 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAXA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 21*\" DAY or ocrosea 2o1ofrx.\n\nBE FORE :\n\nTHE HON'Bl..E MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHANrA1N'A:GojubA'Ro'  'E\nwan PETITIQN Ng.\u00a7\u00a746g.2g\"Q gm _   \nAND W.P.NQs.1\u00a7717-751\ufb01i\ufb02gg\ufb01 \"QE M-S ea' 94): \"  \n\nBggwggn :\n\nI. Ganesha\nS\/o Pachappa\nAged about 35 years H\n2. Jayamma        \nW\/o Chin,n'ap\"p_a*..,.I{--_ ' Q A'  \nAged about 3-{2}'Yea'r5' \n\n3. Rajebydran  '\ufb01g: \nS\/o Karixyappa  '   \nAged abou_t:O 40 years \" . \n\n.._4. C.h\u00a7:onba*Ko|arnida.i:VV_ _\n _Aged?~a'bo'ut 45 yeafs\n\n  shit. o5a.aAa:agkshm;\n\n'--w\/so Raja'ppa\nAged _aboVuj1t 55 years\n\n   Gopaia\n\n'S\/o Subrarnanya\n\n  \"Aged about 37 years\n\n\n\n10\n\n11.\n\n12.\n\n13.\n _ 15.\n\nIndrani\nW\/0 Ramanathan\nAged about 42 years\n\n. Raja\n\nS\/o Rajumani\nAged about 40 years\n\n. Peria Swamy\n\nS\/o Chinnappa\nAged about 50 years\n\n. Arjunappa\n\nS\/o Mutha\nAged about 38 years\n\nSmt. Muniyamma\nW\/o Muniswamy\n\nAged about 45 years \n\nSarasa '- _ .\nW\/o B. Varadaraju  * \n\nAged abodt'A~44V ..ye\u00abars\u00ab\n\nN. shwaja.\nS\/0 Mun-\u00e9swvamy V\nAjgedyabout 44 years\n\n_ \nA   539.93-\n'-'_Ayged.\"a.bou't\u00bb\u00bb'32 years\n\n Kijhwari\nD\/~.o Ramesh\n\n A. ,__Age'd about 35 years\n\nMuniswamy\nS\/o Perumai\nAged about 48 years\n\n\n\n17.\n18.\n19.\n20.\n21.\n\n22.\n\n23.\n_kg,24au\n333 25.\n\n3Lok\u00e9\ufb01a\u00a3h,\nT' 310'  raga ia h\n'r-'_Aged.'a.bou\";-39 years\n\nAnjali\nD\/0 Muthyalappa\nAged about 30 years\n\nSmt. Lakshmi\nW\/o Kanan\nAged about 40 years\n\njtayakumar\nS\/0 Ponniah\nAged about 36 years\n\nGopalappa\nS\/o Seetharamaiah\nAged about 43 years\n\nMunirathna\nD\/0 Muniswamy __\nAged about 35 yea.r's'~~.__\n\nSmt. Papamma\n\nW\/o i\\Earashirr:a_murt'hy. _ if '\n\nAged agh5U'3f*'35v\\\u00a7ear'\u00abs:W...\n\nBalab  A . \nS\/0 Veniaatesh \n\nAfgedyabout .34' 'years .3\n\n ee--i'a'\\\/afhi\n\nW\/o 'Fferumal\n\n A. ,__Age'd about 37 years\n\n Venkatesh\nS\/o Arjuna\nAged about 42 years\n\n\n\n. 27.\n\n28.\n\n29.\n\n3o.\n31.\n32.\n33.\n 34.\n\n3.5.\n\n  7.36.\n\nM. Paiani\nS\/o Sulavan\n\nVasantha\nS\/o Govindappa\nAged about 47 years\n\nDoraiswamy\nAge Major\n\nSmt. Margatham\nW\/o Chinnatham bi\n\nAged about 45 years\n\nKanan\nS\/o Manikyam\n\nAged about 34 years. '-\n\nNata raj a_ \n\nS\/o Sun'dVa.*a.rr1'a\"?V'..__ \"   3\nAged abo.ut\u00bb..3:D_yea'rs.  .. ' V\n\nYe!'amm.a  \n\nW\/d~.R39Ur'-a '    \nAged about 535 y'e'ars\"~.._ \"\n\nIS; 'Kr.Eshn.Vapp_a' \n\n _ ._':g_S';'.'o ;_ Na ray a n a'sw.a.my\n\u00ab _ 3 Ag e'dfAab4ou._t 4 1 yea rs\n\n _\ndo\/o !.\\E.a'gfai.f'r\n\n(:f:iria_poa\n\n' 3. ,.S\/o'~Veni<atesh\n\n  Aged about 45 years\n\nAll are residents of\nBhovi Colony Sium\n\n\n\nThyagarajanagar\nBangalore~56O 028.\n\n(By Sri B. Srinivas, AdV.,)\n\nAnd :\n\n1.\n\nState of Karnataka   \nBy it's Secretary 1\nHousing and Urban Development\nDepartment, Bangalore-01,: \n\n. The Deputy Commissioner\n\nBangalore District, Ba.ngalore--.~~--  \n\n. The Karnataka Slum Cal'ear'arice'm?\n\nBoard, Risaldhar Street_'  V\nSheshasripurarn  _'  _   \nBangalore-5560    "  \nRep by itfs'"Corrimi'ssiVone_r'.=.._   \u00bb\n\n. The Bra-hat'hi.Ba'r3igalo're it\n\nMahainaga%a<"E?.alik3eV \nBangalore V _'    .\nRep by' its Com_m%ss\u00e9Qiier;\u00ab \n\n. Smt; K_rishE1a.m'ma\n\n\\l\\_i\/":3 iYl__araVshEm"al\u00abu.. ..... \n\n Age Major,\n\n' No.23.,V6"'\u00abviM'ain Road\n\n3"' \u00abBlvo'\u00a2~lg," Tfiiyag a ra j a n a g a r\n\n" Baragalor\u00e9j-SD60 028.\n\n. Sriot. kasiyamma\n.. Sincevdead by LRs.,\n\n Mannaraswamy\n\nAged about 67 years\nS\/o late Arymuthu\n\n..PetEtioners \n\n\n\n7.\n\nSmt. Manimata\nAged about 22 years\nD\/o Mannaraswamy\nW\/o Amawase\n\n(D)\n\nBoth are residing at\nNo.16, 3"" Block\nThyagarajanagar\nBaragaiore~560 028.\n\n(Note : R6(a) & (b) ame.nde\u00a3I'._:_' "\n\nG. Sundar\n\nS\/o Guruswamy\n\nAge Major\n\nNo.26\/27, 3'" Block _\nThyagarajan.ag.ar---.  , \nBangalore-H560 Q28. _   V\n\nSmt. Param\u00e9$'h'\u00a7~ar:i' '\nW\/o V'; M. -Rajmatifga-ndra'*~.\nAge Major ' ' \n\nNo.25A,_'6",'_ Main iioad_ "--..,: '  %\n3" Block, Thyagar\u00abajja,_na.gar'\nBan'ga|roe--~,56DVQ;28;.., \n\n.  ,C:ajaIakshhm,i ..... \n\nV  S:j'nd'a*:_am\n Age, M.a}'o.r'vaw , ' ~\n\nA  , :\\!-';}.,1 3, f'3.',"," Bfio\u00e9k\n\n'Thyagaraja nagar\n\n3a.nga'{o:'-94560 O28.\n\nSarriundi\n\n" _ "S\/0 Kaiiappa\n\n" Age Major\nNo.87, 3"' Biock\nThyagarajanagar\n\n\n\nBangaiore-S60 028.\n\n11. Smt. Akeiandama\nW\/o K. Inaval\nAge Major\nNo.28, 3"' Biock\nThyagarajanagar\nBangaiore-560 028.   \n\n12. Smt. Nagamma\nW\/o Chinappa\nAge Major\nNo.38, 3"' Biock\nThyagarajanagar  z  --   \nBangaIore~--56O O28..._ ;   ".\u00abrRespondents<\/pre>\n
(By Sri S.B. Shahabur, Ag.a.y,_ for –R.1_ah”d. R33; <\/p>\n
Sri T.G. Suresh,anad’—N. l\u00a5flanohVar,..yAdVa_, f’or\u00abR3;<\/p>\n
Sri Vinayak B,’ iadxz\ufb01y’ for M\/sq Ashok Ha”r-‘cmahaiii<\/p>\n
Associates for R4; ‘SrE’..__N.R.;}–Na\u00a7k;” A’dy.,V_for M\/s. N.R. Naik and
\nAssociates for.R5,:’jR6(a)antt3\u00bbt_'(b){R7and R9)<\/p>\n
Tnesevmt ‘e\u00e9t’s\u00abtio\ufb01s\u00ab–yt\u00a7ir\u00e9d filed under Articles 226 & 227
\nof the _ConstEt..utionV of Iocfia praying to quash the order dated
\n5.8.2<QO'8, passed by the R2, the Deputy Commissioner,<\/p>\n
"V"\u00ab..BAan\u00a7\u00a3_a'::oreA ..y_Distr'E<:t–,- ——– \u00abBangalore in proceedings vide<\/p>\n
 Annexurde-;L:\n<\/p>\n
aw’ ,
\nan<\/p>\n
 .  These,,\u00bbv_WAr:Et”Petitions coming on for hearing this day, the<\/p>\n
Cot-rtmadge’  foilowing :\n<\/p>\n
QRDER<\/p>\n
 V. ]”Petitioners claiming to be the residents of Bhovi Colony<\/p>\n
sitjm, Thyagarajanagar, Bangalore–28, have filed these writ<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
petitions questioning the order passed by the Deputy
\nCommissioner, Bangalore, vide Annexure-‘ G’ dated <\/p>\n
in proceedings No.i(SACR.22\/1991-92.\n<\/p>\n
2. According to the petit:io’ne–rs,, <\/p>\n
residing in the said slum area over\u00b0’iast_(three’ d’ecade’s,”\u00ab.1;h’at_<\/p>\n
the said area lacks basic ameniti_es._,and.’the con’ditio:n’s”‘tnerein” A<\/p>\n
are unsanitary and consequengti-y, ~.tVhe”ar.ea in question is not<\/p>\n
fit for habitation.\n<\/p>\n
3.  re:\u00bbrea_i”‘tha_t Deputy Commissioner,
\nBangaiorepistrictgybiissued’V’Va.'(_’n.ot:i’f’ication dated 22″” Euiy 2008
\non being’    question which is situated
\nwithin iimitsof ‘Ba.ngiia’i’ore\u00ab–.i:,C’orporation is a source of danger<\/p>\n
area y’;o”t.he he’aith’,’1sa’fety and convenience and not fit for<\/p>\n
 (human habitat_i_on etc., deciared the same as a siurn area by<\/p>\n
Aissu-ingi  dated 22.7.2008 under Section 3(1) of<\/p>\n
 _ Karnataira Sium Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act,<\/p>\n
 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The<\/p>\n
,.’_’rioti’iication was questioned by eight persons, inciuding<\/p>\n
 “ceirtairi of the petitioners before this Court, in Writ Petition<\/p>\n
1\/”\n<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
__g_
\ni\\ios.1542–44\/94 8: connected matters. The said writ<\/p>\n
petitions came to be dismissed by the order dated 18th
\nAugust 1998. The order passed in the writ petitions came to<\/p>\n
be confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court<\/p>\n
Appeal Nos.S908–5915\/1998 on 28.8.1999. Th,;.:’s,’itt,’_is.i%_<\/p>\n
that the deciaration of the area in question~vais._”E~.,s’i–ii:rri. area<\/p>\n
under Section 3(1) of the Act has attained<\/p>\n
4. Subsequentiy, a notifi’cation”caVrne <\/p>\n
the office of the Deputy C:_o4:r’rs:1:_1is.sioner,\u00ab-.f_:l3an\u00a7aiore on
\n11.11.1996 bearing No.’K\u00a73’ACii\/29.2\/T9′:-599″‘declaring the area<\/p>\n
in question “cieara.nc’e’ (\ufb01uasias tfiaaasoed \u00a7cSt3)
\nunder seam  The said notification was<\/p>\n
questioned  c’erta’inA’0fV’t’he persons, inciuding some of the<\/p>\n
“”‘*’pe\u00e9tit’io’ne.;-is in,.these””wr’i’t petitions, before this Court in Writ<\/p>\n
“‘*i?f?.eVtit.ion1::i\u00a7.os\u00bb.4338’99-33903\/96 & connected matters. Those<\/p>\n
writ ..petiti.on_s:-.,c’ame to be allowed on 3″‘ August 1999 and the<\/p>\n
93*\u00bb-‘\u00ab4___”matterswere remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh<\/p>\n
,V”r.onsid,eration, inasmuch as, petitioners therein were not<\/p>\n
_g_i__\\3en adequate opportunity of being heard. The order of<\/p>\n
}’_\/”\u00e9<\/p>\n
-10-<\/span><\/p>\n
remand passed by the learned Single Judge in the<\/p>\n
aforementioned writ petitions was questioned by theppstate of<\/p>\n
Karnataka before the Division Bench of this Coiurttl..’b_y’._:fi’ling.<\/p>\n
Writ Appeal No.6315\/99 and connected matt-e,.A4rjs~..l–T:he <\/p>\n
appeals were also dismissed by an\ufb01vorder.rJa’ted4.y.4f?”‘February<\/p>\n
zooo. Thus, the order p’aS__Sed 3’\u00b0’sit;’:gd.\u00ab__1’tg?:ti’;1999i”.<\/p>\n
remanding the matter to the   to re-\n<\/p>\n
consider the matter underii-S_etftio;nA  viias upheld.
\nThereafter, the  an order on
\n3.12.2002   in question as a
\nslum cle’ajran.ce*i.’.j’expat; vtgorder also came to be
\nquestiohed__  byucertain of the petitioners in
\nWrit Petiltionl Nos’.::s\u00e9pos’42s’8is\/04. After hearing, the said<\/p>\n
writpeizitionsl were allowed on 315* August 2005 and the<\/p>\n
 rnattler “again remitted back to the Deputy<\/p>\n
Corn_mis’sio’\u00abnea’sx.for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the<\/p>\n
 _ impu’gne_d’or’der is passed as per Annexure-‘G’ dated 5″‘<\/p>\n
_Atigust ‘2d08 by the Deputy Commissioner hoiding that the<\/p>\n
_’  area in question is not a ‘slum area’.\n<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
-11-<\/span><\/p>\n
S. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners<\/p>\n
submitted that the Deputy Commissioner cannot ignoreythe<\/p>\n
orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition;”””f\\i’o;s.’_1:54.2..A<\/p>\n
44\/1994 and connected matters and _in–…’4WriVt’A–C.::Appeai.,,C4″‘<\/p>\n
Nos.5908–5915\/98. As aforemenizioned.fith-is’:4.Court’-inthe<\/p>\n
aforementioned matters has conf__irmeci.th’e noti\ufb01catii\u00e9on ijs’_;sued”i.<\/p>\n
by the Deputy Commissioner  SectVi’on’._V3′(vi)  the Act.
\nWhat was under co_n:side?_ratVio.n:~..__=befo_re  Deputy
\nCommissioner after validity of the
\nnotification   the Act. Thus,
\naccording’ to,’    counsei, the Deputy
\n in conciuding that the area in<\/p>\n
question ‘isnnot ‘fit Vto,”b_e’*\u00ab-sdeciared as sium area. In other<\/p>\n
V words, ieagrneid “c.o_u’n’sei’for the petitioners submit that by the<\/p>\n
 order, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the<\/p>\n
 S’_ec’ti0n 3(1) of the Act afresh ignoring the<\/p>\n
A by _ earlier o:f’d’ers”of this Court, which is illegai and arbitrary.<\/p>\n
  T””~\u00abThe writ petitions are opposed by Sri N.R.Naii<, iearned<\/p>\n
 counsel appearing on behaif of the contesting respondents.<\/p>\n
i\/3<\/p>\n
11;)",<\/p>\n
He submits that the impugned order is in effect an order
\npassed only under Section 11 (1) of the Act and not under
\nSection 3(1) of the Act. He draws the attention of the Court<\/p>\n
that the Deputy Commissioner on getting spot inspection<\/p>\n
done by the jurisdictional authorities, has C0nClude.('I\ufb01,'\u00a7l*i\u00a7it",tlii'3,<\/p>\n
is not a fit case to declare the area as slum .c_l\u00e9a,ra'nf_cel'area-4,_ <\/p>\n
inasmuch as, the area in <\/p>\n
consequently is fit for habitation' 1 A if . . A  if\n<\/p>\n
6. Thus, the on|Y Cluestio’ni’i’t:hatneeds. :.if3eCV.’:ci,ecVided in<\/p>\n
these writ petitions is asto..whether’:’thedmpugned”order vide<\/p>\n
Annexure?””G~*,.V.,:Ci:atedfi-:”St”-.V;tu’gus’t””2i508 is an order passed
\nunder se’cti\u00a2f; 3 (ifofhgolr under Section 11(1) of the<\/p>\n
Act. It is notd’ispu.ted–,_:by”‘l’learned advocates appearing on<\/p>\n
“‘eiAthe:if5sid\u00bbe,:th,,at the ‘o–:<d–e'r in question is passed under Section<\/p>\n
 Deputy Commissioner could not have<\/p>\n
passedhithetoylrderir under Section 3(1) of the Act, inasmuch as,<\/p>\n
 not~ifi"c';ation issued under Section 3(1) of the Act is<\/p>\n
   confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1542–<\/p>\n
 & connected matters as well as in Writ Appeal<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
-13-<\/span>
\ni\\los.5908-5915\/98, disposed of 18.8.1998 and 28.5.1999<\/p>\n
respectively. On going through the impugned order, it is
\nclear that the Deputy Commissioner has discussed the case<\/p>\n
under Section 11 (1) of the Act and not under Sectionw,’,:\u00b0$(.1) of<\/p>\n
the Act. However, in the concluding portion of <\/p>\n
Deputy Commissioner has erroneously used_th’e’—wor_d~ ‘9.’6.a7s9a3_,<\/p>\n
\u00a7:5\u00a2z% i.e., “slum area” instead of the <\/p>\n
spas ” i.e., “slum clearance a*=ea..’f. The yvrong’,:’wAoi’vdi,ng..3used.f<\/p>\n
by the Deputy Commissioner VAh.as,”created.confusion in the<\/p>\n
minds of the parties. ThE1s,,thesiarnei”needsto be corrected.<\/p>\n
Having E~e’g”,~\u00a7rd, ‘tota.l{fy of’;”tlh’eV’v4facts and circumstances,<\/p>\n
this Court, isof  that the order impuged is<\/p>\n
passed _unde9r”~Secti,o[n AA1′–.1i(‘1=)”9V of the Act and consequently the<\/p>\n
 Cyommissioneiri-~i1’as held that this is not a fit case to<\/p>\n
“d_ecfa.re..ti~1_e”are_afin question as slum clearance area. The<\/p>\n
word,__’4″”‘8.rag5,$5v’t:’l_@c5c8 ” used by the Deputy Commissioner<\/p>\n
.”*~.__’s’\u00bbhould ” read as “\ufb01uav\u00e9as s\ufb02aaiaatoa’ \u00a7,c3\u00a2z%”. As<\/p>\n
 ..af~ore~m’entioned, the learned advocates appearing on behalf<\/p>\n
V’<\/p>\n
” 1′ 5  T’<\/p>\n
– 14 –\n<\/p>\n
of the parties agree with the said proposition. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
the foliowing order is made :\n<\/p>\n
The order vide Annexure-‘ 6′ dated 5.8.2008 passed by<\/p>\n
the 2″” respondent is not interfered with. Howeve’r’;”\u00bb.it is<\/p>\n
made ciear that the said order is passed under <\/p>\n
of the Act. The word “3.J3″u’333 gas;-3″ used,by~i.tVh\u00e9joepiutt%,aAV1″g_<\/p>\n
Commissioner shali be read as    Etis<\/p>\n
further made clear that the irn_pugVnedA’oride.r_  redad.”<\/p>\n
as the one declaring that the apreafir} ‘q_LV1estio”n.isA  fit to be<\/p>\n
deciared as sium cieararicegareaf\u00a7jnder.,’jSection 11 (1) of the<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
With.__”these._i’o’bse’i*\\r’ations, the writ petitions are<\/p>\n
dispqsed. of: ‘-1<\/p>\n
Sd\/-5
\nIudge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Ganesha S\/O Pachappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 21 October, 2010 Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAXA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21*” DAY or ocrosea 2o1ofrx. BE FORE : THE HON’Bl..E MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHANrA1N’A:GojubA’Ro’ ‘E wan PETITIQN Ng.\u00a7\u00a746g.2g”Q gm _ AND W.P.NQs.1\u00a7717-751\ufb01i\ufb02gg\ufb01 “QE M-S ea’ […]<\/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-255235","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGanesha S\/O Pachappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its ... on 21 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\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ganesha S\/O Pachappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its ... on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-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=\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-24T22:54:47+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\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ganesha S\/O Pachappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 21 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-24T22:54:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1430,\"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\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Ganesha S\/O Pachappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its ... on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-24T22:54:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ganesha S\/O Pachappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 21 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":"Ganesha S\/O Pachappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its ... on 21 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\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ganesha S\/O Pachappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its ... on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-24T22:54:47+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\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ganesha S\/O Pachappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 21 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-24T22:54:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010"},"wordCount":1430,"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\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010","name":"Ganesha S\/O Pachappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its ... on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-24T22:54:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesha-so-pachappa-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ganesha S\/O Pachappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 21 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\/255235","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=255235"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255235\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255235"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255235"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255235"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}