IN THE H183 counm Q? KARKAEAKA Aw $§§e3;éafiT;”y_
DATED wnxs TH 27″‘nA3woE_au;Y;”2QQ§vf.”g
THE HON’BLE M.JU$ric3 K L,Max3ua$¢H”fi
THE HOIVBLE
W.AufiCl1426?fiFfl2@G3CKLRA)
BEIWEEN :
1 U M mHIMMA§pA;Aa;_’, . «
s/o MAN! aanafiaxaflp ‘~*
AGE;m?3″XR$Q,,– ‘”ummx
R/flfi ILIBEELU, $flAR_TALUK
snigoaa nIs¢RIc?, m_ … APPELLANT
(By sr1:M;3;KRiséH§mfi3THY, zssxnx ASSOCIATES FOR
‘:*V§Hs LA2§.igIBuuAL,
“_’sgaaajmA$K, saaaa,
‘$HIMOGh3fiIST. BY ITS sscnawgnx
<,_"»2 THE émamn 03 KARNA$AKA
".3 max: SUEBARAQ s/0 KRISHNEAH
"_ REVEHUE nape.
» VVEDHANA sounga,
g’£rLona*1
gnznssznwzn BY ITS SECRETARY.
Aenn ABOU 82 YEARS
AQRICULTURIST, R/0 NITTUR,
HO TALUK, SHIMOGA DISK’.
4 sum LAKSHMAMMA -m,;g =.«
D/O LA$E HAN: CHANDRASHEKAR_RBO _’=Q
AGED ABGUT 63 YEARS ; ,_ :’a’ ‘
R/Am NITTUR, BOSRAGRA TALHK”
sazuoaa nxswnxcw V ‘H ‘
5 sax RAGHAVENDRA ,’ _ *
s/0 LAEE MANI qHANDRAsH®xAn_RAo”
AGED ABOUT 37 2235: :_f»_,f.
R/AI RITTUR, KosRAaARA6rALflK,’–
saxuoea DIswRICTW ._v =*.”4=w
6 sRI.GANEsfiAiAK;t } ‘,”**~~
SINCE £3cgfisgn”R2pRnsENmE BY LES.
6ta)BaAy3fiAaMa,w/QfLAmz~GANEsH£AH
AGED ABGUT 75 33333 _-
R/c_sANKAh$HAmABgGgA’vzLaAeE,
ILIEEELU,’_SAflARxfELUK,
sHzMoGA*n:sT3xcT.j~ … RESPONBEN¥S
_ (By $fiT;.ASE§”MQ§pMBARGERIMAwH, ace?)
‘»iHI$: w§$w_ APPEAL IS FILED U18 4 or was
Kasxamaga HIGH sonny ACT PRAXIRG we saw Asxna wan
Ofififlk pmssmo In THE WRIT pzrxwzon NO.29?53/2001
_ __VpAmxn_9/552593.
‘$7813 ARPPEAL COMI’.bIG OR FOR PRELIMINARY EIEARING
4 fH:$:DAx;”MmNJUnAra J, DELIVEREB THE FOLLOWIRG:
NT
” V’ The legality and correctness ad? the order
=_ §.assed in W.P.NO.29753/2001 df:.9th June 2008 is
calied in question in this appaal.
‘Qy,
production of additional document has “been
allowed, it. was tha dtlty of the
Authority to consider the additianal .
But. on” account of the V
Reforms Act, the Appellate
aboiished. Therefore, said’
bound to be consiagred i;.*ar£§i_ iiribunal
afresh. Therefore, ‘w.:–~;T’ rtgxi; merits in
this appeal .
4 . _tia_é*—a;;>§;*.éa1 is dismissed.
sa/-J;
« ….. .. v
Sd/-r
‘Judge