Holding

The land was purchased in a public auction for a price and did not constitute a "granted land" under the Act, so the Act does not apply and the High Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition.

Summary

The appellant, B.K. Muniraju, sought cancellation of a sale deed and restoration of land that had been transferred to respondents 4 and 5, invoking the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner held that the land was not a "granted land" but had been purchased by the appellant's grandfather in a public auction for a price, and therefore the Act did not apply. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the document titled "Certificate of Grant/Saguvali Chit" could be construed as evidence of a grant and reiterated that the true nature of a document must be discerned from its recitals, not its title. It also clarified the limited scope of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227, holding that pure factual errors cannot be corrected unless they are manifest and cause grave injustice. Concluding that the land was indeed bought at auction and not a granted land, the Court affirmed the lower authorities' findings and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the land in question qualifies as "granted land" within the meaning of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and its Rules.
Whether the High Court could set aside the factual findings of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner by issuing a writ of certiorari under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
How a document titled "Certificate of Grant" should be interpreted – whether the title controls or the recitals and surrounding evidence determine its true nature.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 227
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978s. 4(1), s. 4(2), s. 4(3)
Mysore Land Revenue Rules

Subjects

certiorariArticle 226Article 227Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Actgrant landpublic auctiondocument interpretationjurisdictionfactual findingsland transfer prohibition

Judgment

(2008] 2 S.C.R. 992

A B.K. MUNIRAJU
II.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 15, 2008
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950:
Art. 226 - Wiit jurisdiction - Writ of certiorari - Issuance
C of - Scope - Discussed.
Art.227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - Exercise of- Scope
- Discussed.
Deeds and Documents:
D
Nature of document - Determination of - Held:
Document to be read as a whole - Recitals of the document
to be seen and not the title.
After coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled
E Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of
Certain Lands) Act, 1978, Appellant filed application before
Respondent No.2-authority viz. the Assistant
Commissioner for cancellation of the purported sale deed
made by his grandfather in respect of the land in question·
F in favour of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and for restoration
of the said land under the provisions of the said Act.
According to the Appellant, the land in question was
granted under the Mysore Land Revenue Rules and
hence could not have been alienated in violation of the
G condition governing the grant. In this regard a document
titled "Certificate of Grant/Saguvali Chit" was filed. The
Assistant Commissioner however held that the said land
was not a "granted land" but was purchased by the
grandfather of Appellant in public auction and hence did
H 992
t-
'
B.K. MUNI RAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 993

-).. not attract the provisions of s.4 of the Act. Respondent A
No.3-appellate authority viz. the Deputy Commissioner
upheld the decision of the Assistant Commissioner.
Appellant filed writ petition praying for quashing of the
orders of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by issuance of
certiorari. High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence B
the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. A writ of Certiorari can only be issued in
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction which is different c
from appellate jurisdiction. The writ jurisdiction extends
only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts
or tribunals or authorities in excess of their jurisdiction
or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested
in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise
D
of their jurisdiction causing grave mis-carriage of justice.
In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior
tribunal or authority, a writ of Certiorari can be issued only
if in recording such a finding, the tribunal/authority has
acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has
refused to admit an admissible evidence, or if the finding E
is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such
cases the error amounts to an error of law. A pure error of
fact, however grave, cannot be corrected by a writ.
[Para 14] [1002-A, 8, C, D]
~ ") F
1.2. Whether it is a writ of Certiorari or the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere
errors of fact or of law unless: (i) the error is manifest and
apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it
is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the
G
provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure
)- of justice has occasioned thereby. The High Court in
exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not
convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-
appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors
H
~
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008]2 S.C.R.

A in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or
-'-
technical character. The exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down
in a straight jacket formula or rigid rules. Though the
power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will
B be .governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience
enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of
the judge. [Para 15] [1002-G; 1003-A, 8, C]
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. (2003) 6
sec 675 - relied on.
c
2.1. Merely because the document in question has
been styled or titled as "Certificate of Grant", it cannot be
construed that the land was a "granted land" attracting
the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
D
Lands) Act, 1978 and the Rules. [Para 13] [1001-E]
.....
2.2. In order to know the real nature of a document,
one has to look into its recitals and not the title. The
intention is to be gathered from the recitals in the deed,
E the conduct of the parties and the evidence on record.
The question of construction of a document is to be
decided by finding out the intention of the executant,
firstly, from a comprehensive reading of the terms of the
document itself, and then, by looking into to the extent
F permissible - the prevailing circumstances which -("
persuaded the author of the document to execute it. With ""(

a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction, the
document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term
used may not be determinative of the real nature of
transaction. [Para 12] [1000-F, G; 1001-A]
G
2.3. A perusal of the clauses in the said document .
'(
clearly shows that the land was sold in a public auction
and the grandfather of Appellant purchased the same for
a price. In addition to the recitals, the "darkhast register
H extract" also shows that the land in question was sold
B.K. MUNI RAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 995
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

-). for a"price". Form I also indicates that the land in question A
was purchased and what was paid by the purchaser under
the said document was the purchase price. The Assistant
and the Deputy Commissioner, the authorized authorities
under the Act and Rules, on verification of the contents
of the document coupled with Revenue extract rightly B
concluded that the land was purchased by the
grandfather of the Appellant in a public auction for a
price. In light of the factual conclusion, the High Court
· has rightly refused to quash the orders of the said
authorities and dismissed the writ petition. [Paras 13, 16] c
[1001-C, D,· F; 1003-E]
Manchegowda and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
(1984) 3 SCC 301; Siddegowda v. Assistant Commissioner
and Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 675; Guntaiah and Ors. v. Hambamma
and Ors. (2005) 6 sec 228 and T Mohd. Haneef v. Dy. D
Commissioner and Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 90 - distinguished.
Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 573;
Subbegowda (Dead) by LR. v. Thimmegowda (Dead) by LRs.,
(2004) 9 SCC 734 and Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Rajendra E
Prasad & Anr. (2006) 4 SCC 432 - referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1320 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.07.2004 of the

.... ' High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 795
of 2002.
F

Altaf Ahmed, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Greesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar.
and Gd. Aswadhanarayana for the Appellant.
S.N. Bhat, D.P. Chaturvedi, Amit Kr. Chawla and Sanjay G
R. Hegde for the Respondents.
)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1) Leave granted.
H
~-
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 2 S.C.R.

A 2) This appeal is directed against the order dated -4,-
12.07.2004 in Writ Appeal No. 795of2002 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore dismissing the appeal of the appellant
confirming the order dated 07 .12.2001 in Writ Petition No. 809
of2000 of the learned single Judge.
B 3) Brief facts:
The land in question bearing Survey. No. 72 of ;,.

Bommanahalli Village, Segur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk was
.
· allotted to the grand-father of the appellant, namely, Motappa,
c who belongs to the Bhovi Community under the Mysore Land
Grant Rules. The total extent of mortgaged land was 2 acres 29
guntas. Later in 1956, Motappa mortgaged 1 acre of the said
. land to one Munichennamma. Subsequently in 1959, he
mortgaged another portion of the land in favour of one
Ramachandra. Reddy, who was the father of respondent Nos. 4
D & 5 herein by raising a loan of Rs. 1000/- to discharge his
previous mortgage amount. .~

4) After the demise of Motappa and Ramachandra Reddy,
B.K. Muniraju, the appellant herein and one M. Gopal paid the
mortgaged amount of Rs.1000/- to respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and
E
requested them to discharge the mortgage. Respondent Nos.
4 & 5 refused to discharge the mortgage on the ground that it
was not a mortgage deed but an absolute sale deed. On coming
into force of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tfibes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
F (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in the year H)81, the
~ 'f
appellant herein along with M.Gopal, who died during the
pendency of writ appeal, and also a legal heir of deceased
Motappa filed an application before the Assistant Com missioner
for cancellation of the sale deed and restoration of the land under
G the provisions of the said Act. The Assistant Commissioner
dropped the proceedings on the ground that the alienation is
-<:
after the expiry period of ten years of non-alienation clause and
hence the sale transaction is not in violation of the condition
governing grant and, therefore, it does not attract the provisions
H of Section 4(1) of the Act. Against the said order, the appellant
-{,
B.K. MUNI RAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 997
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
_,l preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner which A
was also dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant approached the
High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 11821 of 1987 and the
High Court allowed the said petition and remanded the matter
to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal. The High
Court, in its order, directed the Assistant Commissioner to B
examine the original Saguvali chit besides the original records
_.. relating to grant proceedings to the land in question and then
decide whether or not the provisions of the Act are attracted to
the facts of the case and whether the prohibition or alienation
has been violated by the grantee. Based on the said direction c
of the High Court, the Assistant Commissioner heard the matter .
afresh. Finally, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the
matter holding that the land in question is not a "granted land"
but was purchased by M<?tappa in public auction and hence,
the Act is not applicable. It was also held that the auction
D
purchaser does not come under the Rules relating to the grant
~
and there is no violation of the conditions of the grant.
Questioning the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, the
appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner who also dismissed the appeal holding that the
land granted at an u·pset price is alienated after a period of ten E
years of non-alienation condition period, that the land granted
at an upset price, did not attract the provisions of Section
4(1) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner also held that the

.
-,
Saguvali chit issued in Form No.1 indicates that the land was
allotted to Motappa in public auction at an upset price of F
Rs.408.12.
5) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Deputy
Commissioner, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 809 of 2000
before the High Court. The main grievance of the appellant
G
before the learned single Judge was that the land was granted
:> under the Mysore Land Revenue Rules and not a land sold at
public auction. It was contended that insofaras the "granted
lands" are concerned, there was a total prohibition from
alienating the land as per the Rules that were prevailing at the
H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A time of grant in question. However, the learned single Judge .!., -
dismissed the writ petition and the writ appeal filed by the
appellant herein was also dismissed by the Division Bench
which is impugned in this appeal.
6) Heard Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel
B appearing for the appellant.and Mr. S.N. Bhat, iearned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and Mr. Amit Kumar
~-
Chawla, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1-3.
7) Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing for
c the appellant, by taking us through the provisions of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 as well as
the Rules under the Mysore Land Revenue Code, contended
that the authorities as.well as the High Court committed an error
in rejecting the claim of the appellant inasmuch as it contraverts
D
the said Act and the Rules. He further submitted that in view of
the earlier order of the High Court directing the Assistant ).,-

Commissioner to verify the original record and arrive a fresh
conclusion, the contrary decision by the said officer is liable to
be interfered with. On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned
E counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 4 & 5,
submitted that in view of the specific factual finding by both the
authorities namely, that Motappa purchased the land in question
by offering "price" in a public auction and it was not a "granted
land", and the same was duly considered and affirmed by the
F High Court, there is no valid ground for interference.
8) We have perused all the relevant materials, Ann·exures
~ .
and considered the rival contentions. The only question to be
considered in this appeal is whether the land in question was
"granted land" or "purchased for a price" by Motappa? If it is
G
found that the subject matter of a land was not a "grant~d land",
it does not attract the vice of Section 4 of the Act.
'
'

9) The Stateme1Jt of Objects and Reasons of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
H (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 shows that
t~
B.K. MUNIRAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 999
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
-* the non-alienation clause contained in the existing Land Grant A
/'
Rules and the provisions for cancellation of grants where the
land is alienated in contravention of the above said provision
are found not sufficient to help the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes grantees whose ignorance and poverty have
been exploited by persons belonging to the affluent and powerful B
sections to obtain sales or mortgages either for a nominal
..... consideration or for no consideration at all and they have become
,,,,,. the victims of circumstances. To fulfill the purposes of the grant,
the land even if it has been alienated, should be restored to the
.... original grantee or his heirs. It is clear that in order to provide c
for the prohibition of transfer of certain lands granted by
Government to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in the State of Karnataka, the above said Act
was enacted. In order to implement the provisions of the Act,
the Rules were framed. Among the provisions, we are concerned
D
,. with Section 4 which protiibits transfer of "granted land". It makes

• ~
it clear that notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement,
contract on instrument, any transfer of granted land made either
· before or after the commencement of the Act, in contravention
of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for
such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, E
title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed
ever to have conveyed by such transfer. Sub-section (2) makes
it clear that no person shall, after the commencement of the Act,
transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the
,. "' previous permission of the. Government. As per sub-section (3), F
the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) also apply to the sale
of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or
I
of any award or order of any other authority.
~
10) Among the Rules, Rule 43 is relevant which speaks
G
about the grant of occupancies. Sub-rule( 1) of Rule 43 mandates
~ ;>
that all the lands shall ordinarily be sold by public auction. Sub-
rule (5) mandates Grant of occupancies to members of
~ depressed classes. Sub-Rule (8) makes it clear that lands
"""' granted free or at upset price shall not be alienated but may be
H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A accepted as security for loans. The note appended to the above ~

provisions makes i~ clear that depressed classes occurring in
'i
these rules will have to be constructed as equivalent to the words
"Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes" occurring in the
Constitution of India.
B 11) From the materials, now we have to see whether the
land purchased by Motappa was a "granted land" as claimed ,.k
by the appellant herein and one M. Gopal or purchased by public
~
auction for a price as claimed by contesting respondents 4 & 5
herein? In order to understand whether the land in question was
c a "granted land" or "Ian~ purchased for a price at a public
auction", it is incumbent on the part of the authorities to look into
the relevant records and decide the same. In view of the
controversy in question, we verified the document and the orders
passed by the Assistant and the Deputy Commissioner and the
D factual findings recorded by them. It .reveals that the land in
question was granted in 1948 and the Certificate of GranU
Saguvali Chit which was filed as Annexure R-1 before the High
,,.._ ,..
Court (Annexure P-3 before us) shows that the same was sold
in public auction for a price. In other words,· the land was
I
E purchased by Motappa at a public auction and it was not a ~

"granted land" within the meaning of Rule 43(8) of the Rules. It
was contended that the finding reco.rded by both the
authorities is essentially a factual finding based on the
relevant materials and the same cannot be interfered with by
F the writ court. ":" ·~

12) The document in question which is filed as Annexure
P-3, ha·s been styled or titled as "Certificate of Grant". In order
to know the real nature of the document, one has to look into the
recitals of the document and not the title of the document. The
G intention is to be gathered from the recitals in the deed, the
conduct of the parties and the evidence on record. It is settled I
law that the question of construction of a document is to be
decided by finding out the intention of the executant, firstly, from
' I

a comprehensive reading of the terms of the document itself,
H and then, by looking into to the extent permissible - the prevailing
~
B.K. MUNIRAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKAAND ORS. 1001
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
circumstances which persuaded the author of the document to A
execute it. With a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction,
the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term
used may not be determinative of the real nature of transaction.
Reference in this regard can be made to the following cases
i.e. Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 573, B
Subbegowda (Dead) by LR. vs. Thimmegowda (Dead) by
_. LRs., (2004) 9 SCC 734 and Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs.
Rajendra Prasad & Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 432.
13) The above principles make it clear that we have to
see terms and conditions and recitals in the document and not c
the title alone. Though the document, according to the appellant,
"Certificate of Grant", perusal of the clauses therein, clearly
shows that the land was sold on 04.03.1948 in a public auction
and Motappa purchased the same for a price of Rs.408.12. In
addition to the recitals, the "darkhast register extract" produced D
... as Annexure "C" before the High Court also shows that the land
in question was sold for a "price". Form I also indicates that the
land in question was purchased and what was paid by the
purchaser under the said document was the purchase price. In
the light of the principles mentioned above and the terms and E
conditions in the recital· clearly show that the land was purchased
by Motappa in a public auction for a price. Merely because the
document has been styled or titled as "Certificate of Grant", it
cannot be construed that the land was a "granted land" attracting
~ ...., the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Assistant and the F
Deputy Commissioner, the authorized authorities under the Act
and Rules, on verification of the contents of the document coupled
with Revenue extract rightly concluded that the land was
purchased by M~tappa in a public auction for a price even in
the year 1948.
G
;
> 14) Now let us consider the jurisdiction of the High Court
for interference in a factual decision arrived at by the authorities.
It is relevant to point out that the appellant and Mr. Gopal filed
Writ Petition No. 809 of 2000 before the High Court praying to
quash the orders dated 11.03.1999 and 20.09.1999 issued by H
.F

1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
-i'
A the Assistant and Deputy Commissioner - respondent Nos. 2 ~-
and 3 herein, by issuance of Certiorari. It is settled law that a
writ of Certiorari can only be issued in exercise of extraorc;linary
jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The writ
jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by
B inferior courts or tribunals or authorities in excess of their
t
jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction
,...._
vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise
of their jurisdiction causing grave mis-carriage of justice. In
regard to a finding of fact. recorded by an inferior tribunal or
c authority, a writ of Certiorari can be issued only if in recording -,.
such a finding, the tribunal/authority has acted on evidence which '
is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit an admissible
evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at
all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of
law. It is needless to mention that a pure error of fact, however .
D ).
grave, cannot be corrected by a writ. It is useful to refer the
~
decisit>n of this Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander
Rai and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 675 wherein, in para 38,
held as under:

E "...... (3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution,
is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e.
when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without
jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists
·none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by overstepping
F or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant
~ -1
disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in
violation of principles of natural justice where there is no
procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of
justice."
G 15) It istclear that whether it is a writ of Certiorari or the
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct -<,
mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements
are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face
of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance
H or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice
~
B.K. MUNI RAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 1003
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

--4
_,. or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. It is also clear A
that the High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory
jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge
in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in
drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical
character. As observed in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander B
Rai (supra), the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 or 227
~
of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a straight jacket
formula or rigid rules. To put it clear though the power is there
___,.
but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely
by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial c
experience and practical wisdom of the judge.
16) In the light of the above principles, let us consider
whether the High Court committed any error in dismissing the
writ petition. We have already referred to the recitals in the
\ document produced before the High Court which though titled D
l
as certificate of grant/Saguvali chit, various terms and
' 4
conditions make it clear that the land was purchased by Motappa
in a public auction on payment of a price for Rs.408.12. In
addition, the two authorities as well as the High Court adverted
to the revenue extract and concluded that it was not a "granted E
land" and it was purchased in a public auction on payment of
a price. In the light of the factual conclusion, we are satisfied
that the High Court has rightly refused to quash the orders of
the said authorities and dismissed the writ petition. If the
.-. 't
factual finding that the subject-matter of the land was a F
"granted land" undoubtedly it attracts bar under Section 4 of
"" the Act and follow the conditions as stated in Rule 43 (1) (5)
and (8).
17) In the light of the above conclusion, though Mr. Altaf

-
Ahmed, learned senior counsel heavily relied on the decisions G
> of this Court, namely, Manchegowda and Others vs. State of
Karnataka and Others, (1984) 3 SCC 301, Siddegowda vs.
Assistant Commissioner and Others, (2003) 10 SCC 675,
Guntaiah and Others vs. Hambamma and Others, (2005) 6
SCC 228 and T. Mohd. Haneef vs. Dy. Commissioner and H
1
~- ...

r•
•
1004. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

,!.-,-
A Others, (2004) 13 SCC 90, in our opinion, it would be of no r
help to the stand taken by him. Hence, we refrain from
elaborating the ratio laid down therein.
18) In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and the
same is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of ·-
1
8 the case, there is no order as to costs. t.
~
,
8.8.8. Appeal dismissed.

i
.,...,
i'
~-

,. .~

l
'
....
I

-( . ~-