High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr Karkal Mansoor Ali S/Olate K. … vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secy on 22 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mr Karkal Mansoor Ali S/Olate K. … vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secy on 22 April, 2009
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT op KARh?ATAKA,"_BA,$i(§;fiL{)RE  

DATED THE 22%» DAY 0EA?;éH. 2:309 » = "  

BEFORE  

THE HON'BLE MR.  '§;'I§§§RAYAbiA"S'WAMY

wan' msrrmon rib; M  {I   ; 

BETWEEN    

1

MR. KAF?KA;';MANSO'-Ci}? 'Am  
S /O_I.,A'I'E»K; A;BDL?L 
AGED  55 YEARS,' %
289,?.._I-Iii} 1a2MvfkIA1%STAz3E%%   '

4'93 MAIN, 15THfCRQjSS""
DOLLARS COL«'.)NY A 

B.i§..."*¥(}_A1,0RI3--':'360094'  PE'I'ITIONER

 (By sIé1*:A;%1§ sLr5BA:AH$ ADvocATE )

 3'rA':*E 0? KARNATAKA
BY  SECRETARY

 . REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
 VVM3 BUILDING,
 BANGALORE

*' TZTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

DODDABALLAPUTR SUB DIVTSION,
PODIUM BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR,
VISWESHWARAYA TOWER,
BANGALORE AK



3 THE THASHILDAR   
DEVANAHALLI TALUK I
DEVANAHALLI

4 THE DEPUTY COMMISJSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRILCST' 
   "~-..f..L'RESPONDENTS

(By SR1 RKUMAR HOG? Fee :22 5159123; ':V2S}i5VOCATE)

THIS WRI1' '*PETI_'I§1'ON« FILED FRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED EENl}'QRSEM'E1§{'oFSV.. .:_~I'iS--SU£3D BY THE R3,
D'I'.7. 1.09,  0,? THE R2 DT.5.1.09M A
COPY OF ?NH1cH.;3s HTEREEHPRODUCED AS ANN--H 65 ANN--J
RESPECHVELY H0igDING";fP As vom ABINITIO.

THIS W"RIfI' P1:*rrfIoi~s::eoi«aINo ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, Tnooooumi MAEDEITHE F'OLLOWINCr:~--

ORDER

earlier approached this court in WP No.

egsgs/2oo3.o.eL . The same came to be disposed of on

1o[jo3/2903 with a direcfion to the Tahsildar Devana Halli to

the application of the petitioner for Phodi and.

_f?£:z2dbast11 expeditiously. Since the said order was not

complied, the petitioner preferred a contempt wee in (300 No.

°Y

3

575/ 2008 which came to be dropped on the ‘mass

that an Phocii work has already been done

en endcrsement was produced to “I K

ecunsel submitted that the euClru’semerit%-

escape from the contempt. drew my
attention to the letter 13%;. 1. tfiotnmissioner
dated 19/ow 2003 informed the
Assistant Ex~Se-rvioeman
the ll of the land in
question he the location of the schedulw

land. In the ape;-deva paman MR No. 35/05-06 and 47/06-

;j’t’)'”?. _ Q aside ‘requested to decide the appeal in

Hence, the leamm ceunsel for the

. that there are 2 independent versions

u made by théwahsixdar. He has stated in his letter addmsm

Assistant Commissioner dated 19/05/2008 as per

‘}§11ne§x11xe-C that the Qsamuel himsetf is in occupation of the

” ‘Lind. He has also pointed out that an error is co1m:m’tl;ed in

3 the ofiiee which requires to be rectified. This shows that

°I’

5

With these observations, this writ

The time for compliance is 3

of copy of this order.

BSV