IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF' JULY 2009
BEFORE % A
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J.GUI\§riALj'*:V/L x
WRIT PETITION No.2093%%/j2o09{KvoAE%)%% L ? %
BETWEEN :
1. Smtdayamma,
W/o.Nee1appa,
Aged about 73 years,'__ 5 _ _
Residing at Mugalagcfi: VEIL-a_._gE:,} ' '
Hosagoddanakoppa P0st,._
Hosuru H0bIi,_'Shila*ipij;1* 3 ~
2. Sfi.Hi1cr:arayap;g1a.% * '
V
Aged about 35 ye_ai*:s,"
Rcsiditig at Mugalagem village,
Hpéagpizddanakogapa Post,
.m>sur=.1 Hahn, Shikripur 'Taluk,
3. S1i';%Pa3aksha:ppa (3.,
Si'9.Na:§x:'iappa,
Aged about 45 years,
A nI'<:,/at LIG IA] 15,11 Phase,
;<.H_.B. Gopala,
' '.Shi1:noga City.
V[ 14." 'Ramesha (3.,
S / o. Neelappa,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at Mugalagere village,
Hosagonddanakoppa Péegt:
I-Iosuru Hobli, Shikripur Taluk,
Shimcga District. ...PETI'I'IONE'~RS
(By Sri.Nagarajappa, Adv.)
AND :
1. The Assistant Commissioner,
Sagar Sub Bivision, Sagar.
2. Veerabhadrappa Gowdé,
S / o.Charmave3rappa Gowda;
Aged about '78 years,;__ .
3. Smt.Gowramrna, * v
W/ofihivalingappa, V
Aged about ye-,ars,;_' "
Repoiidcrits 3 _a1*¢' _
Rcsid"i._11g.at viilage,
Hosuru Hobii, Shikalipura Taiuk,
smmoga l"I)'iStrict.* .. RESPONDENTS
” – é A %’%(L§yispi;H,K.Basavaxaj, HOG? for R 1)
H ‘- is filed under Articles 226 and
227 01’ the ~C<;§a1sti.tution of India with a prayer to quash
{the order dated 02.08.2008 in Misc. appeal
i.*',"'–__N"o,£¥T2/03, "passed by the District Judge, Shimoga vide
' I 'C'.
Writ petition coming on for prelzmmary’ ‘
‘ vhearing, this. day, the Court made the following:
Doddarangaiah and another 9/s.
Smt.Lalcsh:namma and others reported in 197f(1)
Km-.’L.J. 396, Section 5 of the Limitation Act weu_idV..u
be attracted to the pmeeedings befere
under Section 3(2) of the Karnvatai-ta’ & ‘
Abolition Act.
3. Indeed it is observe-é’ 5 ;<:)f the
Limitation Act is not vLb11i;».,TAIiewever, Vwhat is
required to be looked petitioners
have approached nable time.
The dziijati.-(>11 . df ‘cermot be considered as
reasonable’ ” fiioubt true that an eifort is
‘. fladc me” ” counsel appearing for the
}s’upmit that the appeal is filed within 90
date of knowledge. Apparently, the
_ ‘.petitienei’:§ eexmot be heard to say that they were not
‘ Nthe proceedings at all for over a period of 30
inasmuch as hair” of the generation would have
, 4;Vgjc’)11ebyt11attime. fl
/2.”
.. 5 ..
4. Having regard to the order passed by the
learned Appellate Judge, I am of the View
interfering with the pnoceeditags would ”
inasmuch as the third party rights also 3
been created after reagent. Henee,
that there is no merit in this petifionf
Petition stands fdected. V
5. Mr.H.K. sppesfieg for
respondent No.1,_ is tefi memo of
« . .
Iudge