Ganga Visweshwara Devaru vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2009

any wwwwwwn ww L'.v»4vmKm«zwa"w«3Ja""I2nts.x"11 amsmewxcu W-mymgmg my' 3-M»x_g<mVggW»o§R§.mu'$W uafiwyafl gm,' ,wm

IH 13% HIGH COEIRT CF KAR2'¥A1I'AKA AT 

DAEED THIS was 29'DAX 0? JULY, 2oQ§ V$ F

ISRESENT

was EONNBLE MR.JUSTICE 3 L MA&JUNAifig  77

AND . , ~ »,~_ .2
was HGN’BLE MR.JUs:1¢E RAVI MALInaxa’

w.A”No.16o1’o§»2eoa*_ « :

BETWEEN:

1

aanaa vxstwzsagnaznmnaui
AI MADAs9R=–V ,””~j* *,1_ ; a:
BY ITS VE$?A?h§R.SRIfiHAR”Wfu_Wf
AGE: 47 ¥RS”*»’*? ‘«,–*,*
R/0&:- %. Am-t:%=I<
snimoahuamsrfi" =" 'W

9 — – 7fl»"~ ' … APPELLANT

(By Sri s u;s.§A&fiK§fia;VKEsv¥ & co. FOR

jahsn $7"

VLsm§w£%5P K3RNAIAKA
‘REP BE Iwfi $EcREmARx To $33

_flE?T.0F;REVENUE

vznaana SOUDHA,BANGALORE

, «:H3’LAn TRIBUNAL aaaaa
»_B2 ITS sncnswaax
‘TALUK OFFICE, saaan TOWN

SAGAR , SKIMOGA DIST

HUCHHA?EA s/0 KARNAPEA
MAJOR
R/O LIxaAnAaALLI
saaan mALUK,sH:MoaA pxsr
RESPONDERTS

(By SMT: AS838. H. ERIMATH, H069. )

“”””” “”‘”‘”*”” W”wM*’Iwm”‘v« nmwwlnw ‘€\w?’11a»#>’%.10’hWo’¥: Wm !a’wa”‘annm£”m&#’~tw¢W: &!5¥:fi\’L.;iH6’i&; mumwwm

4. We have heard the counsel fox» the

appellant.

5. Even before this ourt{ the a§g¢;;agu%n;s.ll

not placed any material fig _§h&w’ that} thé

appellants were not aware-..__.of ‘s:._hé

‘1’..~:ib’unal from 197? to is
properly offered by the” slppellant
even at the time. of wa are
of the opinlgfi;i§figt3tfigl:§é%fi§§*fiing1e Judge was
just:i.fied_._ Petition on the
grfiflfifi 1 daily and latches of 24

years in ‘Court .

gfiaqrdifiglv——-..,.~’thia all is dismissed.

Sid/¥:

Iudge

Salli
Tudge