...(I.?3Y SR}. ASHOK R KALYANASHETTY, ADV} 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF IQLARNATAKA, BWGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUS'If;2GQ;';...'..;: ' %
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
WRIT PETYPION N0.5§g3 01? 'E;
1 LAKSHMAMMA
w/0. LAX1\{fiN_ARASIi?IHAI4%H "
AGE:3A5oU*r:;3o YE}-_AR_s '
occ :._HO.1¥SEHO£.D'=WORK "
RfAT._(_}ADi KQPPA
';€_'Q &'1)iv3fr.1sHVIMQ'c2~A. _ _--
2 HAMEMANTHARAYA
S/O1»L,ATVE GANAGP;l§£'IA
_ -AGED }'=.BO'U'i' 45- YEARS
.. occ ; AGR--ECULTURE
'R.,'}AT"V--ALKOLA;"VINOBHANAGAR PO
.. _ ':fQv.a5.ms'r. SHIMOGA.
3 "M'G_~vsA1;A;11 RAG
' S/Q.' :25; B GGVINDA RAD
A€}EL""ABOU'F 45 YEARS
00%: : SERVICE (P 85 1' BEPT)
---- A. , _ RfA'I' ALKOLA, VINOBHANAGAR PO
" _ KTQ 63 DIS'E'.SHIMOGA.
' PETITIONERS
M
mz
reselution dated 15-04-1991 Almextlre-"D" followed by
the issue of the Hakka patras and
construct buildings. It is the assertion of the *
that after the sites in question fft11»Vtxzi4t11i:.:Vtf1eee .teI9i'itoria*J._V V'
jurisdiction of the Shimoga
were issued with Katha' 431 " L'
respondent --~ Z having: the. reeoiufion
dated 31-08-2002 the Hakku
patra and they in violation
of the ‘ ttave preferred this
Writ ;. ‘ ._ V . . ‘ :.
I¢The by filing Statement
of obj_ect§o1isM of feepondents. The 431 respondent is
” by learned counsel.
V heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner’ ‘ 0: examined the impugwd resolution
V-.,A1meX11;e«”N” of the 43* respondent, it is patent that the
§¥*h_>_ufespondent without extending an opportunity of
QR
4
hearing to the petitioner, took a decision to set–aside the
Hakim Patras issued by the Mandal Panchayath
the year 1991 followed by kathas in fa’i3fi):’iiIf.:iiV)f” ”
petitioners. The petifioners 2
civil rights over the properties’, it; xques’:;i,o1’1.V on
ailotment, issue of “to the ‘V ‘
resolution A1mexure–:”I;}” ‘ “Pai’iehayati1
followed by registraiion’ A s éflfie of the said
properties by the 4th
respondent; the part of the 4th
respofidefii of hearing to the
petitioiiefs resolution impugied.
A. -4. L It that if there is a power to
.– . deeisis 3.”4§i,’;’f1(i”€’1’Ct(3I’I’}VClV.ii;’1′(‘.;§V to the prejudice of a person, duty
1 L–.to._aet’ implicit in the exercise of such power.
If Athe of justice be ignored and the order to
“the piejiidice of a person is made, the order is a nullity.
Appifiking the aforesaid well-estabiished principle of law,
V ‘ ” £1/MK
the resolution ixnpugled of the 4*?’
unsustainable and this Writ:
allowed and is accordingly a1Iow;Ȏ;1f
O8-2002 AI1I},6XuI'(§\¢}\3′” of i§.éfia§h€d,
in so far as it reiates t-Qthe
xma
KS