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