Smt Susheela vs The District Magistrate And … on 7 July, 2009

 '  Sm1;.'t;"~':Vsat'i1:"*_a ;§*-.?si_ati'1i V.ArunkumaI;

" . 'W/0'S:'iViA1jm1kumar,

 ' Bcliary Dismct. ...PE"I'I'i'I§\IE%
(Sri H.;ut 36 years,

Fiat' £510.32, Gandhinagar,
? BeI'ia1y--583 103,

I. The District Magismate and
Deputy Commissioner
Davanagere District,

 



   is to be zxotioed that 'Ii/Iartzthi Shetty

Vv ewes }f1(}ti(;';€': under Seciior}. 13(2) of the Act
 K  Eye  failed a repiy game an <)I"t3.€I' is passed finder
 13(4) ef the Seeurifisation Act rejecting the
"'--«Ecibjeetje:1e. In his absence, it is to be {resumed that

A. such a netiee was issued and he hae. replied to the said

anti hand it ever to the respondent No.2, The said order

at Annexure-A is questioned in this writ petitien.

2. Mr.Kant]:1araju, Iearned counsel _

the petitioners suhmite that the>AA»Vpr0per€:jye–A4.: ” * V.
belonged to one Mohan Shetty
the first petitioner and fatberef
Thus, Maruthi Shetty did not offer

the property in L. _A security,
inasmuch as, undivided
share ezrtheg {he iaroperty belonged to

Mohan

” xi 2ie3.*e_V_ f>erVi1eed the impugled orcier at

the best person tie speak whether he

/

notice. whee the reply is rejected, the only course open fl