H V MALLIKARJUNAIAH vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH W.P No.44093/2011 (LR-Res) BETWEEN : 1 H V MALLIKARJUNAIAH S/O LATE S R VEERABASAVAIAH OCC ADVOCATE RA/T GURUSHANTHAPPA COMPELX 4TH CROSS M.G.ROAD, TUMKUR.

2 RAJANNA S/O LATE NARASEGOWDA R/AT KUMKUMANAHALLI MALLASANDRA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK ...PETITIONERS ( By Sri. K SHANTHARAJ ) AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE TAHSILDAR TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR.

2 THE ASST. COMMISSONER TUMUKR SUB DIVISION, TUMKUR.

2 3 M G VANI W/O T C SURESH R/AT 2ND MAIN RAOD, MANJUNATHA CHOWLTRY OWNER VINAYAKA NAGARA EXTENSION, TUMUR TOWN ...RESPONDENTS ( By Sri Shashidhar S.Karmadi, HCGP for R-1 & R-2, Sri. G S BALAGANGADHAR, Advocate for R3 ) W.P is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order at Annexure-D dated 26-8-2011 passed by R-2. This W.P coming on for Prl.hearing in 'B' group this day, the Court passed the following:- O R D E R Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioners filed a petition before the 2nd respondent alleging that 3rd respondent has purchased a land in contravention of Section 79-A & B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and to take action against him since his income is more than two lakhs rupees. They have also filed an application for summoning certain documents from the Income Tax Department. The 2nd respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that already SARAL forms have been submitted and there is no need or necessity to summon the documents from the Income Tax Department. The same is questioned in this writ petition.

3 2. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed on more than one ground. The petitioners are not affected by the impugned order. There is no infringement of petitioners' right to invoke the writ jurisdiction. They have not filed this writ petition in public interest and this is not a Public Interest Litigation. Since SARAL forms are already furnished, it is for the 3rd respondent to decide the matter on the material on record. Petitioners have no locus standi to maintain this writ petition. 3. Writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE MP .