{"id":84828,"date":"2008-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008"},"modified":"2015-09-15T09:53:16","modified_gmt":"2015-09-15T04:23:16","slug":"sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sri Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar<\/div>\n
V 2;:\n\n1 WP35070.08\n\n115 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nTHE Horrnw MR. JUSTICE n.v. sHYLmNI=3\u00a7}i'Ar\u20ac13;%a}a:2a_:\" _\n\nDATED THIS THE 161%! DAY 01:' DECEMBER, 2008,\nBEFORE:   \n\nWrii Petition No.150'?'0 (#2005 KV:;>x~i;;_ '  \"\n\nBETWEEP3:\n\nSEE RAMA VIWAVARDHAKA\nBY {TS PRESIDENT '\n1:: R DASEGOWDA\n\nAGED ABOUT 94 YEARS _\nKGNDETHIMMANA\u00a7\u00a3_&LLi VILI._.A{3E$ \n?AVAGA\u00a3)A TALUKV ' '_ \" '  . L\nTUMKUR DIS'I'RECT  s\n\nsA:\\iA&;;;~1.}x. 'T A' '\n\nPETETIONER'\n\n[By Sri. N DVc.w.'\u00a3:;a.ciasVs--,A&&3r.  for\nM ,'\u00ab .~;,_  Advmjatcs, adv. ,]\n\nma; +.1;::.E;15::_.IM'_91'*'*'{; iaommss\ufb01onaa  \n-'?::;M:<Um:;;_sTE1C:r.' \n'\u00a7'u.M1<;--_ua, "  = *\n\nTHE\u00e9.e<..sS{%sTA'NT'ticsvi\u00a7;z1V\u00e9\u00e9\u00a3oE:NR\nMADHEJGIRI sue EJIVISION\n\n;i\\%'1'1?;E3.HUG1\u00a7?{  '' '\n\nV'  \u00e9:%.R:."r; D':4AL1PA'i'}\ufb01 'RAG\n3 3 'V 8;.'\n\n'E_..A"FE"K_ HANUMANTHARAO\n\nV'  EKEE\u00bb-M<53\\@_R;.. RESIDENT OF'\n'  iiON\u00ab{3ETi{\u00a3MMANAHALLI VILLAGE\n\nVPAVAGPJDA TALUK,\n\n""AR'rMEm\n\n0'}\n\nM S BUILDENC} ANNEXE\nDR AMBEDKAR VEEZDHI\nBANGALORE 560 001\n\nSR1 S R' UMASHANKAR, I A S\n9\/0 CHIEF' SECRETARY TO\nGOVERNMENT OF' KA\u00a7NA'f'AKPs,\n\n\n\n2 WP1:'50'?0.08\n\nVIDHANA SOUEJHA\nDR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI \nBANGALORE 560 C01  RESPGTQDE-NTS\n\n{By Sri. H K Basavaraj, I-{C-GP for R1, R2, R4..&_'}\u00a7\u00a7:;'.'  ~ \nSari. T Seshagiri R30, Adv, for C] R3}-'  '  \n\nTHES PETETZCBN IS P'IL\u00a3D UNDER ARTICLES'f3'i26. AND.2'27 OF\"\nTHE COI\\\u00a5S'I'ITIJ'i'IC}N OF ENDIA, PRA;YiNG\"'\u00abI'Q7,SET_ AFSIDEWTHVE\nORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY CC[MMiSS\u00a7=ONER,. V\"1'-'LI1'\\i'\u00a7I9'\\\"L._',YR*A;;iI\\'1'\nPROCEEDINGS DT. 23.6.2008 AS PER AEJVNEXURE-NI..Ai'EEI) \u00ab\u00a3\u00a7'1'C\u00a7;~,_. \n\nmxs PETITION COMING i:;N_ \"'i\u00bb>g3R i3RE_L1Mv;NvARaf\"'HEA\u00a7:NG;'V'\nTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FQ.LLOWING:.~ * -- -' V\n\nThe pregem;  }3_\\ge=\"\"~1).i'11;t'(,j}.\u00a7\u00e9a.s<i-.1' of certain\nagI'icult1:\u00a3ra.i  was an erstwhile\nvillage of\ufb01c-3. is  this caurt, time and\nagain     ' 3:1 the t.hiI*d round Of writ\n\nlitigatior}  the su{;\u00a7\u20ac$Ct~"Lmatter of the writ petition is an\n\n A.;3rde\u00e9:1_:5'~  U :23;5...r2008 passed by the Deputy\n\n 'lcopy at Annexure-M] rejecting the\n\nre'131i_\u00e9:\u00a5*.t:nt\u00a3iti\u00e9\u00a7_n:\/applicatiori that had been \ufb01led by the writ\n\n -  ;3etitioi1\u00a21\u00a71~to contend that 31"'! respondent one B: Dhalipathi<\/pre>\n
V’    of iata K Hanmnantharao was mat entitied to<\/p>\n
  _;f\u00a2=:iteive compassionate pension as a former hoider of a<\/p>\n
 village office: in terms of earlier order dated ‘2.\u00a7.5.1999<\/p>\n
[copy at Arme:smre~E] far the reason that this order itssif<\/p>\n
#\/<\/p>\n
3 WP150′?0.08<\/p>\n
was taintec\u00e9 by fraud played by the pereon claiming
\npension; tllat; the person was never 2: Viliage
\nthat his claim for re~\u00ab@’ar1t of the
\nmeastu\u00e9ng 4 acres 1? gtmtas in   of  V
\nPavagada Taitlk of Tu111.kur 39%\/s_\u00a3:ri”cA1:f:)\u00a7:1\u00a7’ –ti1e   L\u00bb
\nwas 8. village of\ufb01eer helder   by-”\n<\/p>\n
the Tahsiidar; that it    b\u00a7%’*t1?:\u00a7: District
\nJudge in an appeal L1I1g1er the Karnataka
\n‘Jillage   ‘the Act’]; that
\na writ peti\ufb01ex}   pension agai11st
\nsuch e;’vrVie:’_! _b:: e1VisI1zisse<:1 by this court in<\/p>\n
terms of \u00a3.iae4'order\u00abd\u00a71teei' "'-J':L;3:'.1997 passed in WP No.28{) 18<\/p>\n
V of  {eepf \u00e9rr.V_V_A:;;ne\u00a7:11re\u00bbQ] reported in ILR 199?' KAR<\/p>\n
 825V&& in_v:'e1:?;eVVj4A'1I1a.ti:e:' of 'K BHALIPATHI mo Vs. szzee<\/p>\n
  SANGHA 85 0123'; that it was<\/p>\n
V -V fuztfier \ufb01fixiiied by the divisien Bench in writ appeal<\/p>\n
"  199?'; that if the position that the eiaimant<\/p>\n
seel\u00e9iiig pensien was not a v\ufb01iage of\ufb01ce holder had been<\/p>\n
""V. eeI1e1L1ciecl, it was \ufb02O 6 open to the same person to<\/p>\n
come back in the second romsad through an application<\/p>\n
9%.\n<\/p>\n
4 W’P1;:307().{)8<\/p>\n
Lmder S\u20acC{iOZ\u00a3’1 9 of the Act: to claim such position; :2-133; the
\norder is bad etc… V<\/p>\n
‘2. While this order was subject matter
\nN0.64?5 of 2000 before this coU3’f{ ‘t1*;e_
\ncame to be diSf)GSf?:d of by
\n\ufb02ared 23.8.2001 [copy at   c:al;’:::1V,V
\nthat the Government   ‘\u00e9\u00e9ith\u00e9yt\u00e9r the Writ.
\npetitianer or the  1.!.f1:i:I\ufb01;\u20ac’r~\u00bb.:VI_”%;._f\\’\u00a7f\u00ab}C)0Ii(i\u20ac:I1t therein<\/p>\n
arid there bei.z_:\u00a2g”ffar(\u00a7’ scrape Liitir iiar\u00e9ritier\u00e9zx\u00e9ce in the matter of<\/p>\n
granting rpe:1VSion”‘:\u00a73f:’.fa1:V>o’ur 0f”the\u00b0 third respondent in the
\na\u00a5:)sez1ce_ (if Cli1it:~hi11g~ ,.rI1?;1i\u20ac:_ri\u00e9L1 having not been placed<\/p>\n
before ‘then “‘c.;<ju1'tV t\u00a7itAh,.\u00e9'r'~.-by the writ petitioner or by the<\/p>\n
  r\u00a73:3:.pc}I1(i(3I\u00a71fI;;"*-~–E;'%1\u20aci pt-ztitioner can represent to the<\/p>\n
 L__\u00a7V%:~:;:$_:;;3'1':}-*:'*\u20ac}\u20ac)\ufb01mVi;s,;si0r1er to examinczt the aspect of 1:113 third<\/p>\n
r\u00e9sggrind\u00e9xirr: P-_.h;\u00a7\u00bb1vi1";g playe\u00e9 fraud to get tbs benefit 01"<\/p>\n
 *-\u00ab._ \u00bbpez1si<_}'1i\u00a7__ 1~a:1<:l that can be examined and with that<\/p>\n
 jV."r;'Gs;<:r9'a.ti0r1 the writ: p\ufb01ti\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01 came to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
  VA  Further writ a'pp<5:a1 against this order in Writ appeal<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
510.7897 at' 2001 A dismissed on 1.3.2002 with the<\/p>\n
5 WP15070.08<\/p>\n
obgervation that the apprehensien of the appeiiajratpj the
\npresent Writ petitioner was unca\ufb02ed for to
\nsaid pmceedings can affect the  "\n<\/p>\n
proc\u00e9edizigs and the other   <\/p>\n
of the earlier re-ga11t procecdiiiggwiiicih
\nindependently eta, Whether    ori
\notherwise, it is 3 matt.ef:4_that  exaniiiieii on such
\ncievel0pmez1t$ thgt hafs__   present order
\nDassed by  Almexure-M<\/p>\n
dated ;23.6.2’\u20ac\u20ac)\u00a7Z!E\u00a7.4._i;V.  ‘ ‘H <\/p>\n
4, This {::1f_{ier_ 1f10zV'{1.1ii:i.StiOn\u20acd before this court on<\/p>\n
various gro1;”1~:(iS’. ‘V <\/p>\n
   on behaif of the petitioner Sri. N<\/p>\n
D\u00a7;:vlfi’3dia:$\u00e9;’_~_3\u00a2ai;:1\u00e9d senior counse} would contend that the<\/p>\n
.f)epu’i3? \ufb01\ufb01rmi\ufb01riissioner has passsrd the order in total<\/p>\n
 ” ‘”};ti,0Eaii_\u00a7)n hf the pxninciples of natural justice; mat the<\/p>\n
-..ii’m2aJj;\u20ac:fAwas penciing before the Deputy Commissioner for a<\/p>\n
” long time that had bean reserved for passing orciers<\/p>\n
about {W0 years earii\ufb01r; that the S1}CC\u20acSSOI’ iilepuxy<\/p>\n
a\/i<\/p>\n
6 WP15{)7Q.O8<\/p>\n
Commissioner has passed the order without givirtg an
\nopportunity ete..; that the Deputy Commissioner
\nfailed to notice in the wake of earlier  ~
\nthere is no scope for passing an ortierto   K V’
\nof pt3I}SiOI1 to the petitioner in
\n25.5.1999 which had come”Vx\u00a7*tV..pe
\n{Deputy Commissioner’, ‘~fg1voi1.r’ of  third
\nrespondent; that the   gejoeeedings of the
\nDeputy Com1ni$eioo.er iuqtiestioti of the<\/p>\n
third resporrdezit.iie;{%i3iig’:.;31e;3?e\u20aci”V_frond has not at all been<\/p>\n
examined b:sa’AAti*ze..Liep1;:ty”__Com,missioner which was the<\/p>\n
only aspect, wlrieh W215; ‘”‘re\u00a3:jnt1ire{1 to be looked into and<\/p>\n
V therefore the orelers ~{3-.u\ufb01’ers and the matter warrants<\/p>\n
 _ .ree]poI’1clent has entered caveat. through Sri. T<\/p>\n
V _Sesh}agiri-jl\u00e9aoi learned eounsei.<\/p>\n
 A. ,r_.Su3:)tr1ission of Sri. Seehagiri Rae, learner} eourisel for<\/p>\n
.’_1~th7i.t9d’ respondent by pointing out to the earlier or\u00e9ers and<\/p>\n
~ ..::J’Li'{:lgII1\u20ac1′}tS passed by this court in writ petitions and writ<\/p>\n
$\/<\/p>\n
7 WP150′?0.08<\/p>\n
agpeals is that the apprehension of the preserit writ
\npetitioner is tota\ufb02y uncalled for; that the the
\nIlresent order affecting the Ilroceedings ttyhieit
\nan end under section 3 of the {tot for i 7
\nmiseoneeived; that in fact the ‘third.res.;sondent:’i1as
\nthe matter to the Supre;ne””e<:\u20ac:o3Jrt;V.
\npending before the  ageinstythe order
\npassed by the ditrision  that leave has
\nbeen gented  'jnottttiivipendmg before the
\nSupreme   it nnnexure-R8 to the
\nstatem.ent__V  on behalf of the third
\nresp0nden_t4'–~  is numbered as CC No.80?-4<\/p>\n
of    such orders passed by the<\/p>\n
in   Conirnissioner cannot have any bearing on the<\/p>\n
 before the Supreme Court which is<\/p>\n
V . one"'arising' out of proceedings under section 3 of the Act;<\/p>\n
it it ' _thei*efore there is no need for this court to examine<\/p>\n
—   inatter in this writ petition and particularly as any<\/p>\n
” ‘interference at this stage in respect of the order While<\/p>\n
could aifect the interest of the third respondent for getting<\/p>\n
8 WP13070.08<\/p>\n
pension, it will not in any Way affect the interest of the
\npetitioner in so far as re-gent of the land is eone’eri’2ed;
\nthat therefore the matter need not be examizieti-.9  _<\/p>\n
instance of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
3. Sri. H K Basavaraj, learneii
\nappearing for statutory authoritiesia for wheegi his  ;
\ndirected submits that the  Deputy
\nCommissioner may be  that there is
\nnotllilig further for the  to submit in
\nthe light,\u00bb   by this Court and as
\nhas beetirei\u00e9ed’  counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
9. Whiie ‘it. is  a matter which has attaiiied<\/p>\n
”  the Vidivieion Bench of this court in respect of<\/p>\n
 fact  ‘vfzhetiier the third respondent was an<\/p>\n
erstwhile  office hoider or otherwise cannot be re\u00bb<\/p>\n
i”‘~.-\u00bb_exami:r1ec1 by the Deputy Commissioner in a second or<\/p>\n
   whether fer the purpese of re-grant or for the<\/p>\n
   of gran\ufb01zig pension, I do not \ufb01nd it neither<\/p>\n
 \u00abfeasible nor necessary to examine such questions as to<\/p>\n
9 W’P15()7{}.{}8<\/p>\n
whether the order passed by the Deputy Coznniissioner
\nwas one on a proper application of mind or
\nproper opportunity to the petitioner or after
\nrelevant issue as had been observvedw by    V i
\nto find out as to wheth\u00e9fe’
\npension in the year 1999 in  of V.the_V_tf1i,ri:i
\nwas tainted by the  fraud
\nfor the simple reasn__     WithiIl the
\ndomain of   A to examine as to
\nwhether frangi   bringing about certain
\norders nor  Veourt in a petition under<\/p>\n
Article 2927i4’o\u00a7’  (1’eon4s’tit’ution of indie to go into such 4<\/p>\n
V questions. of the being in existence or otherwise. I<\/p>\n
 find” it i,~:;_ not necessary also for the reason that Sri.<\/p>\n
iearned counsel for third respondent very<\/p>\n
–V  stitinaitted that the order is one con\ufb01ning to the<\/p>\n
 * Eepexisionary bene\ufb01ts that the third respondent gets and not<\/p>\n
one naving any bearing in reegrant proceedings under<\/p>\n
 section 3 of the Act; that it is not sought to be used to<\/p>\n
32\/<\/p>\n
10 WP150′?0.08<\/p>\n
bolster the ease of the third respondent in any.-o’t11er
\nproceedings inciuding pending preceedings ete.,.W T  *<\/p>\n
10. While the question as tow’ wheti-aer–.. 2 <\/p>\n
respondent is entitled for re\u00ab-grant’\u00bb.:on::’the oreiraisei he’<\/p>\n
was erstwhile viliage o\ufb01ice “~%1zo1der. xwhiciji  .?been–,td’<\/p>\n
concluded by the division    subject
\nmatter before the Suprexnieh further is $0
\nbe done in the ggmfxg  it efjoeL\u00a7{\u00a2set:i\u00a33\u00a7:d it feasible to
\nexamine    tioinmissioner being
\nvitiatedidtie   respondent having
\nplayed   nlatter to be examined by the
\ncivil codrt  notVbydAarijr~–‘\u00a7’aut13o\ufb01ties.<\/p>\n
    open to the petitioner to avail of other<\/p>\n
rernedies ‘are available to get over the impugned<\/p>\n
j order} it “is not necessary to examine such aspects fumher.<\/p>\n
    is also open to the third respondent to take up<\/p>\n
  sneh defence in the pending appeal before the Supreme<\/p>\n
” Court. It is not a matter which requires further<\/p>\n
examination in writ j1}.I’iSdiCti(}I1 by this court.<\/p>\n
‘Q\/’<\/p>\n
1 1 WP15(}’?0.(}8<\/p>\n
13. Therefcre the Writ petition is dispossd of wimp the<\/p>\n
above observations.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/’:j
\n ud@\u00a2  <\/p>\n
A11]-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 2008 Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar V 2;: 1 WP35070.08 115 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE Horrnw MR. JUSTICE n.v. sHYLmNI=3\u00a7}i’Ar\u20ac13;%a}a:2a_:” _ DATED THIS THE 161%! DAY 01:’ DECEMBER, 2008, BEFORE: Wrii Petition No.150′?’0 (#2005 KV:;>x~i;;_ ‘ ” BETWEEP3: SEE […]<\/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-84828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 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\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-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=\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-15T04:23:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-15T04:23:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1488,\"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\\\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Sri Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-15T04:23:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 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\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-15T04:23:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-15T04:23:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008"},"wordCount":1488,"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\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008","name":"Sri Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-15T04:23:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-rama-vidyavardhaka-sangha-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Rama Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84828","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=84828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}