Date: 2020-03-23

Civil case

Lakshmidevamma D/o Late Hanumanthappa & Others

V/S

The Commissioner, BDA and another

Fact of the Case.

One Hanumanthappa and his brothers got divided ancestral properties belongs to them. The property bearing Sy No. 104/2, Arakere Village, Bangalore fallen to the share of hanumanthappa. Its total extent is 27 Guntas. During the life time of said Hanumanthappa, he got divided it with him and Muniswamappa the third plaintiff is the son of Muniswamappa and he got separate share from the said land. Among plaintiff 1 and 2 got divided 27 Guntas and each of them got 2 ½ Guntas mutation has been effected in the name of the plaintiffs of their respective share by way of parikatha, among the family members of the plaintiff in the year 1993-94 RTC also stands in their names. They are in continuous and peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares as described in the suit schedule.

The said Hanumanthappa died on 18 – 11 – 1996 as per the division each plaintiffs have constructed their residential houses and they are residing separately. In the year 1988 and 1990 public notice was issued by the first defendant proposed to acquire the entire said suits schedule property for formation of BEM lay – out. Both the notices issued is in respect of Sy No.104/2 and not at all acquired the suit land during the life time of Hanumanthappa . Hence there was no acquisition in respect of suit schedule property. On one day all of a sudden taskforce police of defendants came to suit property, threatened to demolish the buildings. Even though suit schedule property is not subject matter of acquisition.

The plaintiffs are in uninterrupted possession more than 12 years even then BDA has notified the suit land but it has no authority to interference in the settled possession of the plaintiffs. The surrounding area has been developed and constructed area has been developed and constructed number of houses and plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule sites respectively as they are in settled possession and they are perfected their titled over the suit property by way of adverse possession against the defendant . Authorities hence this suit is filed for the reliefs as prayed in the plaint among other grounds vide preliminary notification dated: 17 – 11 – 1988 published in Karnataka Gazette on 05 – 01 – 1989. Final notification was issued on 22 – 07 – 1991 published on the same date.

ISSUES

Whether the plaintiffs prove their alleged lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suits and illegal interference and obstruction by the defendant?

Whether the suit of plaintiffs is bad for want of statutory notice under section 64 of the BDA Act. 1976 to the defendants?

Whether the defendants prove that the suits schedule properties are duly acquired by the defendant in accordance with law and as such the same has stood vested with the defendant free from on the encumbrance and as such the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable?

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit reliefs sought against the defendants?

What Order or Decree?

Date: 2020-04-27

CRIMINAL CASE

Fact of the Case.

In this case deceased was Mr. Ramakrishna, he was driver by profession owned taxi Innova bearing registration No. KA53 AB 6609. Accused No. 1 – A5 made a plan to abduct the Balakrishna along with car kill him and steal away car according to plan they booked car for international air port on 16 – 10 – 2018. Mr. Nagaraj engaged car through phone call to deceased Ramakrishna. Deceased Ramakrishna left home at 7 am he did not return home his wife Nirmala enquired about deceased he did not find anywhere. Therefore, she went police station and made complaint on 17 – 10 – 2018 at 12 noon the sub-inspector of police K R Puram registered FIR.

On 18 – 10 2018 One Mr.Raju a villager found the dead body in coconut grove situated in sy No. 108 at Somanahalli Village, magadi Taluk, identity of the body was not known both the hands of the deceased were found tied together behind, the eyes are also tied with a cloth. Raju suspects that the deceased could have been killed by some one. Therefore, he immediately proceeded to Magadi Police Station on 18 – 10 – 2018 at 5.30 pm and gave information to police station by suomoto power sub inspector of police registered a case in crime No. 222/2018 for offence under IPC Section 302. The Police started investigation he proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared observation spot Mazahar and rough sketch in presence of two witness of local villager during time of investigation police got missing complaint from K R puram. He suggested to verify the dead body of the deceased. wife of deceased contacted dead body kept in mortuary. After having seen the dead body identified the same as that of deceased Ramakrishna, then conducted inquest on the body of the deceased Balakrishna, during the investigation police come to know deceased was killed and steal the car then police alter the case into section 302, 201 and 379 of IPC submitted an alteration report to court.

The deceased was using mobile phone No – 9345715655 obtained the call details of said cell phone number which revealed that there was a phone call from the cell No – 8124445202 to the deceased during further investigation it was revealed that said cell phone belongs to A1, Javed Akhatar.

During investigation police arrested A1 when he was interrogated he offered to make a voluntary confession he disclosed the involvement of four others in crime and place where he hidden Innova car according to voluntary statement of accused police arrested other four person and seized innova car and deceased ATM card issued HDFC Bank standing in the name of Balakrishna.

CHARGES

Whether prosecution proves that accused had intention to abduct and kill the deceased for steal the Innova car ? Whether prosecution proves that revealed phone number establish any evidence? Whether prosecution proves that accused screening the evidence ? Whether the prosecution proves that circumstantial evidence proves the commission of offence? What Order?

Date: 2020-05-18

CONSTITUTION CASE

Ashwath Rao Minors Represented by next friend, Petitioner

V/S

State of Karnataka , Respondent,Principal Secretary, Department of Education

Fact of the Case.

In this case Respondent No 3 school named St.Mira English Medium School which situated in Indira Nagar registered under societies Act 1980 by management of Public Education Society.

Petitioner children got 25 percent seat in Respondent school by Department of Education but Respondent school refused to receive the list of student selected and allotted under the RTE Act. and they did not allowed cluster resource person, it was violation of fundamental rights which is guaranteed under article 21A of Indian Constitution and also their Human Rights.

Admission of Children would not put the management, the school in question to any loss because the state government has fairly come forward to reimburse the fee of the student.

The Respondent contended that school got minority status certificate issued by the National Commission but certificate can not be used or construed to contend that all the schools which the public society may establish are to be automatically taken as minority education institution which they have running schools in same name in different area which is situated in Rajajinagar at BTM lay out St.Miras English Medium School, Indiranagar does not come to the rescue of said management.

ISSUES

Whether the petitioner proves that Respondent School violated the fundamental rights of children? Whether Respondent proved that St.Mira School got Minority Status? Whether the writ filed by the petitioner is maintainable? What is Order?