IN THE HIGH COURT op KARNATAKA AT BANGAEORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEP'FEMBER1,.V-.,
:PRESENT: .f'RflH .
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUS'IVTIGE-.V.C{..ST§.§i'?I;'$fiIE["; M' x
THE I-IOMBLE MR.JUsTz.eE K;Gov;r¢miRzaJfiLU A
Writ Anneal N0s.436I3:68 032009 'tK:..,.R-.L G)
Between:
1. Gamappa, "
S/0. Giddappa',-- __
Age 55 years§;: ._._ . é _
Occ: Ag'-gric1J'1'g,irieLt., "
2. G.~'Né[rayVana @:'INarayé1'nappéi;"
SEO. (_}1Eddapp.g_1,'*, -- .
Age
OCCL..A§1"1cu}«tu 115:, " " V
3. Vieizvfifeshwafa, s
, « 0: ~Veerab}1a;:1rgppa Gowda.
V-.e._Aged éfiyears,
A ' 2 ., 'VOcc:V;eA5*,f1jiC11_1turist.
A11 é1re _reSVi'd_e1;1ts of
Mz"1la1i.«__Vii13ge,
Anandapuram Hobli,
..SagarT'a1uk,
A Shinloga District.
. . Appellants
.. Sr1S.V.Prakash, Advocate)
And:
I. R. Honnappa,
S/0. Ramappa,
Aged 55 years,
Occ: Eigilployee in BSNL,
R/o. M 311 Village, '
Anandapuram Hobli,
Sagar Taiuk.
Shimoga District.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, u '
Shimoga District,
Shimoga. ' '*~ ._ 5
3. The Assistant Corr1mi_ssi.onei', '
Sagar Sub Division; . -
4. The Tahasildiar,
Saga1"TaIuk, K'?-: it . -
Shimoga' Diistticty. = .
' ' ...ReSp0ndents
{By Sri ,yJva.yap_ra1;asbt*;V Advocate for R1
By 5:'3ri D. Vijaykumar; HCGP for R2 to R4}
=I4**=!=>l=
..f1'1tese""»V1it Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the
Court Act, 1961, praying to set aside the
Ortier pasvsed in the Writ Petition No. 14701/2008 at 3336-
37/zoota dated 11.09.2009.
These Writ Appeais coming on for Preliminary
flfieafing, this day, SABHAHIT J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the
petitioners in W.P.Nos. 14701/2008 & 33361-3337/2oo9;
wherein, learned Single Judgelhlas’ ii.
petitions recording the undertalgiiii
respondent that he Woul’dfi”»notVh rernove the
standing trees on till the disposal of
civil suit in the file of Civil
Judge [Ju nioi’ o .. ,2
2. ilA”1g»§;e£:~Ce1n filed W.P.Nos.
1470Cl seeking for quashing
of issued by the
‘l’a.hsildari.l -Sagar ‘Taluk on 11.4.2008 wherein, an
has been given by the Tahsildar that the
. a?ppliCvatioriwV.lgiven by them cannot be considered in View
of”thev–..’:sagi1vali chit issued on 203.2002 and the matter
upendiing before the Civil Court. When the matter was
hosted before the Court, learned Single Judge after
it ” “hearing cousnel appearing for the parties, in View of the
5.)
g given by” the ” iirsut
l’ ” 4 Nos. tot
submissions made by the first respondent which
sufficiently safeguard the apprehension of the writ
petitioners, recorded an undertaking that”:v:th’e~.rfi.rst
respondent would not cut and
trees on the land in questiori-“ti1l’«ith_e Ethel?’ A’
civil suit in o.s.No.34/2008 péndnjg onnje melt
Judge {Junior DiVisioi1}–,.,pAjg:’Sagar,
disposed off the Writ~..petiti’on’sl’; Being aggrieyed by the
same, the writ petitioners Court in these
appeals.
learned counsel for the
appellaI_1ts,p :_”’counsel for first respondent and
learned Govrernrnent §leader appearing for respondent
cousnel vehemently argued that the
prayer’ ‘sought for in the writ petitions was not a
A. di.rect’ion not to cut and remove the standing trees and
it is to take action on unauthorized occupation as it is
been recorded by the learned Single Judge andVi’t–._wou1d
sufficiently safeguard the interest of the petit_i’oner’s;.VThe
original suit filed for declaration of
respondent in O.S. No.34/2{}CM8″isV ii.
consideration before the Civil V4C.oi,:–rt ands t’he1′”efore’,~
this stage, the question
the first responderitjat of flxpetitioners
does not arise ands.VAA”‘:37#~.’-V”AnneXure–G is
justified and the order passed
by the not suffer from any
error or iliegalityzj by this
Court. Accordinglyfthe dismissed.
sd/-L
Judge
Sd/-
Iudge
§’:s5.’.=_f” ‘ V