“Know Your Judge”. Justice R. Nataraj. High Court of Karnataka.

  • Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rangaswamy Nataraj celebrates his 54th Birthday today.
  • Born on 14.03.1970. Enrolled as an Advocate on 08.09.1992.

Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 11.11.2019 and Permanent Judge on 08.09.2021.

Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R Nataraj.

Town Planning. Illegal and unauthorized constructions not only violate the municipal laws and concept of land development of particular area but also affect fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/6x49XfZtJFuI0zUMYCFJAVjo6

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. Section 7(2-A). When Lokayukta conducts inquiry and submits report to Government, it is NOT necessary to give opportunity of being heard to persons named in the report. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/fD2D8hR4It9ZYNIjoeyVl6AHL

Once layout plan is sanctioned after verifying water course, pathway etc, Planning Authority must inspect formation of layout as per the sanctioned plan. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/u56bBLdzlXkMEwRkXTaKGpqYk

When construction of building is unauthorised and without license, action of the Municipal authorities to remove the same cannot be found fault with. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/bwFgvddASUjFIF26ozqurzjJt

Advocate avoids execution of decree passed in 1966 by adopting unprofessional tactics. Karnataka High Court imposes cost of Rs. 5 lakhs, initiates contempt proceedings and refers the matter to Bar Council.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/BBKnHT6iDbqrgf76yoGR8IkEo

Merely because special warrant to search premises is lawful, prosecution cannot be launched without complying Section 155(2) of Cr.PC. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Vip6F0AY20OzKntzUg3hvQAql

Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Pendency of the Master Plan under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act for Government approval can NOT be a ground for rejecting conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/lJHvXbfDT1sGttJhiMg2hUGjQ

Purchase of granted land in public auction conducted by a co-operative Bank in execution proceedings does not attract the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/6Us6CTjjNtkHIcPu8FFi8k9pE

Suit for cancellation of a document. ‘’Value of the property for which the document was executed’’ has to be considered to determine the court fee payable and not the “market value of the property”. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/8SZhiREJLPLDWVeAdBAdG1NEX

Land reserved in the Master Plan for parks and open spaces shall be acquired within a period of five years and compensation be paid failing which the landowner is entitled to use the same. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/kv1FjaVXjQm1BmQePEhXm9zJx

When the authorities repeatedly fail to perform statutory function and to follow the law declared by Courts, the Writ Court can itself grant relief instead of remanding the matter. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/pqVkXybygpL89Ex5iln44cFBI

Hindu Succession Act. Step-mother is not class I heir of Hindu male dying intestate and cannot claim property left by him. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/1xYuDY7kk8U1StavUQgeZgKUs

Relinquishment of Special Economic Zone. Government cannot impose interest on the stamp duty where exemption was granted earlier. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/YlSRzLO4lst4hE8T5qnjkNFEh

Transferee pendente lite can be added as co-plaintiff in pending suit under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/6MApNFHIXigjue2dDCybdNrXa

Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. Purchaser of lands from the holder of the village office is entitled to contest the order of the land Tribunal. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/pTfoEAmFaqBGhswwYhAVSCfTj

Claim for occupancy rights under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act cannot be considered without impleading the Temple or the endowment officer as party respondents. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/hyV8VWwpkYnPPQPvwIE1NMw0k

Agreement to sell does not amount to concluded transfer. Such agreement cannot be construed as void under Section 33 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/REqZzyJeFSOB6NBwxeG4Iyvtc

 

Published by rajdakshalegal

Senior Advocate, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru

Leave a comment