(Er. SR1 RTE: s}%.THYANé;I§AYANA SINGH, HCGP FOR R1~3,
‘ S121; :~.5AE«iAN’i’ESH s HOSMATH, ADV. FOR R-6, R~8 85
IAKD 22′? OF THE CONSTITUTION OF’ INDIA PRAYING T O
THE ORDER QT. 18.3.2008, Is/{ABE IN REVISION
I’I_(‘).V25’f{)3*04 PASSED BY THE R1, VIBE ANN~D.
I V IIVHEIARING {N ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
” “FOLLOWING:
5 THAMMAIAH
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
6 GIRISH
s/0 LATE SIDDAIAH
7 SURESH
S] O LATE SIDDAIAI-I
8 C J LAKKAIAH
S] O LATE SIDDAIAH
9 CJ SHIVANNA I ;
s/0 LATE JAVARAIAH,” ‘
10 CJVIJAYAKUMAR –
s/0 LATE?_;}A§{AR;%IAH,1
RE:3.PoN9VEi;’i:*s» 3TGI._[1D ARE
R/AT cI+:IANDAG”ALU..V:LLAGE,
K.R.NAGAR ‘I’ALUK,.. ‘
MYsoRE..DIsfTi’RIC£’, ”
I. ‘ …RESP{)NDENTS
“‘”:*HIss’$vzéi*:’ PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225
I THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
I
said proceedings. However, when the petitioners.”
knowledge of the order dated 20.02.2003 ,
challenged the same before the [_
Revision No.25/2003-04 under Section 151′ it
Kamataka Land Revenue
Commissioner after noticing has
rejected the revision, that the
Tahsiidar the petitioners
based on the giroduced before the
Tahsildsr. V
Tiie petitioner’s while assaiiing the orders
passer: Commissioner and the Deputy
Comfiiissiolieif eorxtend before this Court that at the first:
instance, ‘tfsriiile regranting the land by order dated
the entire extent had been granted.
‘ .___”{I1tij3nate1y, the authorities themselves had noticed that
there was an error in the said order and as such, by
order dated 08.12.1986 as per Annexure ‘B’, the
32
‘in
II
the procwdings mfore the Tahsildar, all quesjii’c)i:s_’ _
Iefi open -to be considered.
In terms of the above, the
of. No order as to costs.