High Court Karnataka High Court

Quazi Syed Ali Akbar vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Quazi Syed Ali Akbar vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2008
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
IN ?§E HEGH CGSRT GP %%R§%T%E£

CIRC=E? BENCH AT GELBQRGQ

EEFGRE

T33 HGN'BiE MR. JUSTECE L;§§§g¥g£g 3fig§3. *V

BATES TEES ?HE 2?" agy aF_§g§8sT'ga$3 :"'

W.P.fi0.3G12§£2@§3(LR}

gugz: 3333 AL: AKBAR
gags &BGUT 72 YEARS 1 .
SXO LATE QSAZZ Mz§.;UTFa ALE?
Rio SESAM GULBgRgg§fi;sER:c@_
wow Ryf 1§~3~§5:5§,""j»'v§,"»__
CEANCERL sv$A,.H§§£gAaAa-24'~

'A - ',_'_<_ ma". ... PETE?EGNER
gay Sri : S'P_S_fiSSO€IRTES}

é vS?fiT£RQF &ARfi%TAKA

*gRE§'3YjREvE%aE COMMESSZGNER,
REVEfiUE'§E?£RTME§T
VIQHA§A'S®U§HA
E§%GfiZ&RE 1

a.;Axp T§EBUN£L, szagm ?ALuK
"_s§§AM, §UL5AR§A SESTREC? 535 222
R29. 33 zvs CHfiIRMAN

.'i\..':¥ " '

g3""NRGAP?§
* sza KA3Ap?A BHAGGBE
Maaaa
RZO sgsaw
GULBARQA SZSTRECT 535 222



chaiienged tha srdez passad by tme Laad Tribgnai on

18.4.1985

. while aiiawing the Sam ;~:z::7:’r:_

matter was remanded. t0 the Land T:ibuna1_”fo:

consid%xation and tie parties were wermiiiefihfié laafiu

evifience ig respect of thair claim. vgufisaafii

ordez passed LE the earii@r7u¢it ggtiti

C’
[13
“\

I” 3″

L

£1;

:3
D

Tribun&l has pasged the Gréez *Q§ _3G.ifi,2G§2 7gnd the

same is impugnefi herein;_ R

csmié not] leaé hi$ eaidance though iibeziy was

resezvefi in tne*eafiief»?xit petitioa im viaw sf the

fact that”_he was” bédriddea. His request fer

3&jGfig$méBt° OB fiéhe basis of th& medical aertificate

*,En viaw of :he gaid geascfi tbs

‘,”@@tiii$n$r 3uhm$ts that he coald mat iaad e¥idence ag

~ §;xéated ifi_€ne egrlier writ Eéiitififi.

If .

;, ‘ %n béhalf Qf the :&spondenfi$, Szi

%”SLE&Shpand§, fi€GP submitted thai tnough liberty was

“vpfbfiided to the petitioner, his advoaates amgeazed

befare the Tribanal, but did not pragecute their cage.

Hence the matter has been

matariai befsze the Tribunai

£11

tfie getitian.

4. T have heard tié’gargume§ts 1m3§e,Mby3 tha*

laaxnad Government Pleaéez.’* .?eti%iQfier }remained
ab$ent when the case wag calied- ”

5. ?rom the impugné@_o:der it is saen that the

learned asungeiv iefireéenfiihg”th&”~§espective parties

has requééEedx thé7″Land” Trihfinal £0 cansider the

dance Vadduced. Gfix 18;4,l996 anfi on befialf Of the
‘oner ‘Qua S;ik Nafayana Raddy learned ceangel

1
sought time 05 yaribus datea. First it was adjeurned

,€§,11-§$2QQ2.therééf%ar it was adjcurned to 25.9.2@e2,

,:e;2n§2, -;§;§G,2o@2 andj ultimataly on 23.1e.2aa2.
‘Em

Eowever 1hé*,¢0fiid” §Gt able ta use the op§Qrtuni J

*q§anted by..tfi;$ Court and difi not adéuce eviéence.

The Lanfizfzibunai has praceeded to camaidex the case

u”@f, tia résgective parties an Ehe bagig of the

avéiléblé reaords and aisa the gvideace adduced in ERQ

@a;iiér order which was seiagide by this ceuzi in EEG

»

writ petifiion referred to abwve. Tag

M

ané_fiL*

ita order gz3nt@d accu§ancy right :Q_Res§éfidénié=3 and”

4 and the casé of the getiiioneédwa3.rej@0tédf:HEEpm

t&e impugned Grdex it is saéa thai fie iliégaiitylhasuu

been ccmmitted by the Laad Tribufial. ‘§eiCé,Vthere is

no infirmiiy’ in the VQfifle§5 paaéafig and it dcea mat

daserve any interfarence hf t%js*céu$t}~ fianca, tée

writ petition 33″

L€arng@_ ES§?t_i&_°$érmi§ted to fiia memo of

appearanCé_wiEhifiWtwénwé@’

5k$x: ;u