✦ Karnataka High Court · 24 May 2012

R UDLi. F? \F11\1 v. WRIT APPEAL No5

RAVI MALIMATH6 min read

Judgment

TN THE IGH CURT C KARNAAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD D TED1FISTHF24TID YOFMAY2OI SEN THF HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K, L. MANJUNATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT APPEAL No5O49J2OO8 jLRJ BETWEEN R UDLi. F? \F11\1 >J\( F? DL \D B ZF(;AL hF?J’PLcL\ I 3F?’ LS. HI F? L Z ..? j’Tc(J(;) ‘- H—\’ . V \1I’L1) NE ) 1< \F? ) RH V t Al-I. F ? Pill ) ‘ I T ElF? I? A HP HP 1 ‘I I :2: BANGALORE 560001 THE LAND TRIBUNAL HOSPET TQ HOSPET 583201, BELLARY DIST. BY ITS SECRETARY C H DODDA BASAVESWARA RAO BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SAMBHAIAH 5/0 DODDA BASAVESWARA RAO AGE: 48 YEARS, NAGENHALLI POST, HOSPET TQ BELLARY DIST 583201 BADRI 5/0 DODDA BASAVESWARA RAO AGE: 38 YEARS, NAGENAHALLI POST HOSPET TQ., BELLARY DISTRICT, PIN-583 201. RESPONDENTS

4.

(By Sri.K.B.ADHYAPAK, AGA FOR R1.R2: SMT. VI.VIDYA ADV. FOR SRI.K.RAGHAVENDRA RAO ADV. FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED

13.06.2008 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.17707/2002 (LRJ. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY. K.L.MANJUNATH, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ° L C 4 4 > C L C 9 D C N q a L C L C D I r D C p t 2 r D C P E D C L C D C D C D C t - D C D C L C D C D C L C D I r D C D I r D I r D C L C D C D I r D C 2 9 D C D C D C D C L C L C D I D D I D C 4 L C 2 [ 2 9 D D I L C D C L C D C D C D I r D D I . C C C D C D C L C o $ D C L C L 4 t 2 9 4 D C D C D I r 5 0 D I r L C o 5 0 5 L C D I r 2 9 - D C D I r D . 4 I r , 2 ’ — I D C 9 D C D C - > C S 2 : D C D C L C L C D C D C N L C D C 2 C D L C D C D C D I r D D I D C D D I > — D C 5 > D I r D C D C r - D C D I - D C L C 9 4 4 D C L 4 — C D C D C D C DS C LNC D C ) 2 9 L C D C D C c 2 0 L C D I r L C D C D C C c L C * - D C . 2 9 D C C C C . D C 2 9 g 4 D C D C L C I D C D C L C D I r D C C C D S 0 4 ( D C D C D C L tC N D C L C D D I D C L C L C D C D C D C L C D C “ 2 9 - L C D C D C 5 D 4 C C C C D C D C N D C D D I D C D C 0 4 L C 0 4 L C L J C - D C P L C — D ‘ - C D D I D C I — < - , - 4 D C D I r L C L C D C L C D C D C N D C L C D I r D C — D C I D D D C D C L C ‘ $ 9 D C 2 L C L C D C D C C L C D C 2 9 0 4 L “ C D C D C L C L C L C D C 4 J L C L C L C 0 4 t r 2 0 D C H L C D C . 4 4 D I r D C D C D I r o — D C L C D C D C D C % D C D D C . J - L C D D o I 9 . 2 C N 2 0 D C I D D L C o D C L C ‘ < D C L C D C D C C C D C D C g D C t r D C 2 9 D D I , 2 r D C D C o S 2 0 2 L C D C 2 0 D C D C D C t r D D I r D C L C • L C L C D C - L C D D I D C D D I D C 2 9 D C D C L C D C 2 0 2 9 D C D C D C t r L C D C D I r ’ — t D C D C ’ L C . . P H D C • D c D C 9 ) C C C C 5 4 . D C L C D C J - - . L C D C — — 6 ) C C D C L C C D D C - 0 4 t L C L C D C o L C D C D C D C 2 0 L C D C L C C D • $ 2 9 N D C L C D C D C D C D D I t 2 9 C D D I C D L t D C D C L C 0 4 D C 0 4 D C 4 2 _ 4 D D I . D C 4 < D C 4 < L C D C 5 L C . 2 P D C L D C D I D C D C L C . 4 4 — D C D C D C D C 4 D C L C 9 L C o D C D C L C D C — ‘ ‘ t C D C g , t t i a j O 3 F D C i E O j 0 Q Q , f o r a 8 o ‘ . I a 0 Q O W a D C t 0 0 4 - 0 0 0 D C t . ) l C B D C . E o D C . 0 . z D C * . 0 D C ’ a D C < ‘ D C 0 . 0 D C o H . S ‘ 0 0 o % % n g D C . Z 0 0 n 0 D C 0 ) - D C 4 - 0 ’ Z — . 0

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments