✦ Karnataka High Court

YALAGONDA 5/0 CHANDRAM, HANJAGI v. ThE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

This petition is disposed of with a direction to the

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to consider the said representations of the petitioners in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. Ap/- GE

Judgment

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION No.80044/20 12 (KLR-RR) BETWEEN YALAGONDA 5/0 CHANDRAM, HANJAGI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 0CC: AGRICULTURE R/O ARJUNGI B K VILLAGE TQ. INDI, DIST. BIJAPUR. SIDDARAYA Sb CHANDRAM HANJAGI AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, MINOR MINOR GUARDIAN REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOThER SMT. NARASAWWA W/O CHANDRAM HANJAGI R/O ARJUNAGI B K VILLAGE TQ INDI, DIST. BIJAPUR BIRAPPA S/O CHANDRAM HANJAGI AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, MINOR MINOR GUARDIAN REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOThER SMT. NARASAWWA W/O CHANDRAM HANJAGI R/O ARJUNAGI B K VILLAGE TQ INDI, DIST. BIJAPUR SMT. NARASAWWA W/O CHANDRAM HANJAGI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 0CC: HOUSEHOLD R/O ARJUNAGI B K VILLAGE TQ INDI, DIST. BIJAPUR. ... PETITIONERS

#4. (By Sri. I.R.BIRADAR, ADV.) AND 1,

#2. 3,

#4. ThE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 ThE DEPU’IY COMMISSIONER BIJAPUR, DIST. BIJAPUR ThE ASST COMMISSIONER INDI DIST. BIJAPUR THE TAHSILDAR INDI DIST. BIJAPUR. (By SrLMALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, HCGP) RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO - ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING ThE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS ON THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 29.11.2011 AND 25.11.2011 VIDE ANNEXURES B AND C IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND TO PASS SUITABLE ORDERS THEREON, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUTIY. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY. HEARING THIS DAY, ThE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 3 ORDER Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, Government Pleader directed to take notice for the respondents.

#2. The petitioners grievance is that their representations dated 29.11.2011 and 25.11.2011 (Annexures ‘B’ and ‘C’) respectively have remained unconsidered.

#3. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to consider the said representations of the petitioners in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. Ap/- GE

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: This petition is disposed of with a direction to the

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

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