Karnataka High Court
WP/14328/2022 of SHUKANTALA A JAIN Vs THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULE on 16 April 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:20606 WP No. 14328 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 14328 OF 2022 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SHUKANTALA A JAIN W/O ASHOK KUAMR JAIN AGED 57 YEARS 2. ASHOK JAIN AGED 34
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 14328 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1.
SHUKANTALA A JAIN
W/O ASHOK KUAMR JAIN
AGED 57 YEARS
2.
ASHOK JAIN
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.11,
KALPATHRU APARTMENTS
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULE
CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE COMMISSION
NO.14/3, 5TH FLOOR
CFS BUILDING, N.T. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2.
SRI. SEETHARAMAIAH
S/O LATE NARASIMAIAH
Digitally signed
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
2(A).
SRI. VINAY S
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O LATE N. SEETHARAMAIAH
2(B).
SRI. KIRAN S
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O LATE N. SEETHARAMAIAH
2(C).
SRI. NAVEEN S
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O LATE N. SEETHARAMAIAH
ALL ARE R/AT NP. 1765,
JAGADAHALLI, RMV 2ND STAGE
SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANANDA MURTHY R, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A TO C); R1 SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS
VIDE
ANNEXURE-E
DTD.24.6.2022
IN
NO.KARAA/AJAA/AABU/AYOGA/ZAMEENU/CR-128/2022-23 ON
THE FILE OF THE R1 IN ITS ENTIRETY AS LACKING INHERENT
JURISDICTION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The applications I.A.No.1/2026 and 2/2026 are filed by the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2 to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased respondent, while also seeking condonation of delay and setting aside abatement.
2. The petitioners along with the proposed respondents have also filed a joint memo for settlement dated 15.04.2026. It is stated in the joint memo that the brother of respondent No.2- Sri.Ananda.N had filed a suit in O.S.No.19/2023, where respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.1 and after his demise, the legal representatives have been brought on record. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.6 and 7 and the said suit for partition has been disposed of in terms of a compromise petition filed before the Trial Court. It is agreed by the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was
HC-KAR
in fact sold to CIL Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., Bangalore and therefore, no part of the property is available for partition.
3. Learned counsels on both the sides submit that in this writ petition, the subject matter is only Survey No.25/3 of Geddalahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and the statement made in paragraph No.9 regarding the sale made in favour of CIL Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., pertains to Survey No.25/3. In that view of the matter, both the learned counsels submit that since neither the petitioners nor respondent No.2 have retained any rights over the said property and accordingly, the suit has been disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. In that view of the matter, the proposed respondents being the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2 have stated that they have no objection to quash the impugned notice and all further proceedings pursuant to the notice issued by respondent No.1-Commission.
HC-KAR
4. Accordingly, the IAs are allowed while permitting the proposed respondents to come on record as the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall carry out the amendment in the cause title.
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the joint memo filed by the parties while quashing the impugned notice at Annexure-E and all further proceedings thereto, issued by respondent No.1- Commission.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE
rv List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1