High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.Muninanjappa vs State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri.Muninanjappa vs State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
within the time requires to be consideredté 

respondents and only thereafter, such appiirsetion Z  "  t 

be placed before the Committee foi7A1eons§5Ciei#a.tion–ii1s it

regard. It is stated that since -the

existence at present, the consideration I be} made
only after the Committeefis ‘$OI;1Stit11’tfi&, it is found

that the said applieationA’isv.sti11Vpendtngv ‘co1’£sideration.

6. been contended, 8.

perusal 5:’. the no doubt indicate that the

petitioner hate’ on copy at Annexure ‘A’ which

have beenpfixed before the authorities on

regularisation of his unauthorised

oecnpetion~ cultivation. Reference is also made to

” ‘C’ and ‘Q’ to contend that the name of the

T is indicated and a sketch was also drawn.

7. In a circumstance of this nature, the said

documents no doubt prima faeie would indicate that the

t

.o”’
v.

process, the petifioner is granted the liberty ~ V.
more set of papers along with the certified i’
order before the second respondent” seeorid

respondent shall thereafter proeeedv__in.._s.ocorti’once’ it

law and the time limited specifieflabove
the said date. In any” resfziondent
shall dispose of the request other in

accordance with flie”‘fin;efifan§e stated. Untii

the indieeted above, status quo

with regard’ to be maintain’ ed.

_~In ‘teimvs ‘tz’1e,__a_bove, the petifion stands disposed

fie ‘order :as'”to_ costs.

sdl-it
Tudqe

‘ ‘i » . _ _V T QT/’isms