High Court Karnataka High Court

Kataiah S/O Late Sana Boraiah vs Deputy Commissioner Chitradurga … on 18 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Kataiah S/O Late Sana Boraiah vs Deputy Commissioner Chitradurga … on 18 March, 2008
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
 Q Am) "

IN THE men coum or KARNATAKA-A1'  

DATED THIS THE 18"-DAY 01? MARCH» 1    ' ~

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AsH.QK B.TV HfN(§Ii;l'(giE§I$§';:..,.j:VAV':'f

WRIT PETITION No.    

3I7i"'I'IIl um.-u

3-1' I It I-II-II'

I'7_L_2_'I_ ""

1. naialan.     
S[o1atcSanaBo:aiah. '- _  '
S10  "  
Aged   A  '

Sic 

  .... 

% c:2w_2n::n_’~aa1nn_u~gsz_%a.sL>:g1.:g:t_._s%

. A M BM

‘ ~

” . District,
Chifiilga,

Assistant Cs’!-…………..–*-in-..m.-‘.
Chitradurga sub-division,
Gniflafimfia.

3. Kamalamma-,

W]O

D/o Badagi %

All are rcaidcntaof

Chitradu1~ga-Diaurkat. V _
. :’..”.R’E.i.’_”.’.._..’I_._4.’i

iisysni I’é?~5i’:mii:”2

This Wr.it-Petition-is -and–227 craze. %

Constitution of pmying’ -~No.-*1 to
consider agd t.;;;pmp;if1g1;_;: ¢;i;r_i_¢_-;1_n;V 93; .annlimnt_.k-:1. _ gm-

A-:ni1.nn.n-nmn,==I n-all glui-
zI.|.l.|.|\uI.uI.IIn -1-! Elana

grant-of iIIt0¥i11=”’35’=’*_J’i%§ding..__,§=1Vflififilc-V_-ofrtesponflentr-No:l

, ~Ulz’!u.&o

onWfor~ pmiimimny ‘hearmg ‘F .

gmup

I’ _ {Q 1-‘and-.n_u-I fin-n qua-nu’:–:……—_ I.-.-……I__ ll’)!
. .- V V :11: pl ‘ –

.1′ uptior finahiiapoaai ‘consent %of’-<i:oth _

. for the

' "Ill.

nu IJIIJI-I III 1-”

fr
‘5? A
E

Ii ‘ – in ‘fllnrl nlnblri-ndl-. ‘n Inanslnavnvnn. _in.-‘..£-‘I-n-

-It Irvvnllafi GI uB I-Ill’:

tn

V’ for the grant of stay pencling~co:nsi1em1ion=–of-

V’ filed-under Section 5A of the Castes-

1″”‘\nl

/3

97.£5H.

3 ucullllj 311:3″

and–Scheduled Tribes (Pmhibition of Transfir of s p

Act. 1978.

3. By its order, dt.25.08.2006.

interim stay as prayed for. The in L.

is for stay of the operation of the
A] passed by the Assistant the lands
from the petitioners fie 3*’ respondent

It is submitted at respondent Deputy.

n1.1’a__st – tmrof

— — _…_-.. ——-V

Com……..minsir.~ne: has _Ln_~
“1:..”.– t;’:–.,..*

……….1 ….;;.L;}i;;.t-};’ 1…;-;.; –
uypcau pnqucuuugat. tn; |.iv.’VI’l3

4. petlttionfs ditecting -the 1-: respondent-

Deputy” consider the petitioners’ application filed»,

‘in V’I.’rh:l| . -t in tannnnl an awgflifinatnlv an ngnnih_II_-.. F’|_1_rl_hg_r 1|’:

– v p .-f-:~.:-,-f—v ‘”‘”r —W——.1 —-r — –

u… ‘

.a…;;.t, i-~t,=..”…4’:. r®…_…:_-:-….. ..a….n .a:….-..- ..r.n.- ……….1 :4…..1r_

-11 new ». tyvmuuuumamuux a-nun umpuuc u.| um upyctu nauu

an outer of 4 months fmm today. ‘Both the petitioners

” the Sififimspondent an’: dimcted to cooperate with the 1″

Deputy Commissioner in the conclusion of the appeal

% pending befom 1 direct that the petitioners

be dispossessed from the lands in question plnsuant to the

F? BM,

second rcsp0ndent’s order-at Annexure-A. until 4_

petitioners’ LA. for stay in the pcnding- appcaL». ‘ A H J ” V’

I\l’o order as -to costs.

bvr