Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1899 (KAR)

H. K. Suresh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-29

P.S.DINESH KUMAR, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2020
JUDGMENT P.S.Dinesh Kumar, J. - Heard Shri Lingesh Kattimane, learned advocate for the appel lants, Shri G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for the State and Shri Shivaraj S.Bal lol l i, learned advocate for private respondents 4 to 9. 2. Based on a complaint f i led by the appel lants, Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahsi ldar to initiate action against private respondents under Section 192 (A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Accordingly, action was initiated. Private respondents challenged Deputy Commissioner's communication dated 08.03.2018 to the Tahsi ldar in the instant writ petitions. Appellants also moved this Court seeking a direction to the State Government to initiate action pursuant to their complaint. Both writ petitions have been disposed of by the Hon'ble Single Judge by common order dated 18.12.2018. The Hon'ble Single Judge has quashed the notice issued to the private respondents and reserved l iberty to the respondent authorities to comply with the requirement contemplated in the Circular dated 08.09.2008. 3. Shri Ballol l i, learned advocate for the private respondents submits that after disposal of the writ petitions, the Tahsi ldar has fi led a private complaint before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate, Siruguppa. The private respondents have chal lenged the said complaint also. 4. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the Hon'ble Single Judge has reserved l iberty to the State to take action in accordance with law which Tahsi ldar has already initiated. The grievance of the complainant-writ appel lants is that the notice issued by the Tahsi ldar was in accordance with the Circular dated 08.09.2008 which is referred to in the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge. In view of the fact that action has been initiated pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, we are of the view, no interference is necessary with the impugned order. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. No costs. Al l pending IAs do not survive for consideration and they are accordingly disposed of. Shri G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks.