High Court Karnataka High Court

Jafersaab S/O Tajusaab vs Jaibunagi W/O Hazaresaab on 26 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Jafersaab S/O Tajusaab vs Jaibunagi W/O Hazaresaab on 26 February, 2010
Author: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-{ARWAD

DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 20-10

BEFORE) I __  _
TI-IE HO1\§'BLE3 MRJUSTICE sUBHAsH_I3';_jApI~V.E.::~ I

WRIT PETITION NO.66722._IJ.'2CO9(GE\fE--C;P¢j}-» V  

BETWEEN:

JAFERSAAB, s /0 TAJUSAAB MALLIGAR 
AGE 58 YEARS, occ: BUs'INEss,.I""' -  
R/O IIANGAL, TQ. HA1\zGAIL,"%DIs';rf. IIAvE.RI..V,I 
"       _ ....PE'I'1TIONER
(BY sRI,V_Iaj.v..V IJATIE5 ADV.' ~}._j ._ 

AND:

1. SMT.JA1BLJNiABjI,  ._ I  
W/ OVT.I---{AZAEESA'}';B.I Sr~II(I~c,}0N ' »  ,  
AGE 47 YERS,.vOC::: HOUSEHOLD
R/ 0 'INDRA NAGAR; TQ'.~ .HANc--AL,
I3IsT.?HAvER1--. V     

2. SMT. BIBIITATHIMA,  

W';/O MAHAB-UIBAL1 GUTTAL
 "7:.A:G_E 26 YEAR«S..Qcc: HOUSEHOLD

_  R'/0 LELBEEK STREET, 4TH CROSS
  I'~IeAR I°._O'LIcE STATION PARTK

. DA"'I1ANGER_]E?, DIST. DAVANGERE).

3; ' SMT. 1$sO'<53RJAHAN, w/0 RAFIQ DAVANGERE
AGE :34 YEARS, occ: HOUSEHOLD
R/O WALVEKAR HAKKLA, BEHIND MASJID

 " ;1¢IUBLI,TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD.

 _ E' 4'; --.?\/IEHABUBALI, s/0 HAZARESAB SHIGGON,

 AGE 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
 R/ O INDRA NAGAR, HANGAL, TQ. HAN GAL,
DIST. HAVERI.



54 KUM. FIROZA, D/O HAZARESAB SHIGGON
AGE 18 YERS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O INDRA NAGAR, HANGAL, TQ. HANGAL
DIST. HAVERI.

6. DADAIDEER, S /O I-IAZARESAB SHIGGON,
AGE 16 YERS, OCC: NIL,    ; .
SINCE MINOR REPTD BY HIS MINOR GUAIEDIAN' .  «
FATHER RESP.NO.4.   ..    "

7. THE CHIEF OFFICER,     
HANGAL MUNICIPALITY, HANOAL~,..TDIST. HAVERI. ' '

8. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,  _  
REPTD. BY ITS DISTRICT ,.COI«IMISSI.ONER.,
HAVERI, DIST OFFICE COII.RLEX., ;DE'vAOIR.I
HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI.   1   

    'V =,';..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.SANTOFlI_I 1\/I-..1:3ABA.JI, A"DV,_ FOR R1, 4 AND 5
SR1, SURESH NA\r'ALG'UND, ADV. FOR R7
 --------  ._ 'SI/IT:::I<.,vI.DYAvATHI,,_AOA FOR R8
PETITION T'DISMISsED AC_AINT.RESFODNENTS 2, 3 AND 6)

 'k-}r_.k:1»-:1:

THIS WRIT PE'1'I'I'I7©N' FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227.. OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

_ "V"IM&15UGI\i'ED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE--D DATED I7/II/2009 IN
_O.S_.I\IO;':39j2OQ§*~..ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF CIVIL
J-§JDGE(JRu.'DN}gA§ID JMFC HANGAL AND ETC.

1' .THIS"?wRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

'   DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:



ORDER

Petitioners counsel does not press this petition

against respondents 2, 8 and 6.

2. Accordingly, petition iaastanids
against respondents 2, 3 and 6.:

3. Srnt. K. VI’\.7i.dyax,r2iti1ii,p’ u1’earned””~A’dditiona1
Government Advocate notice for
respondent

4,’ ____ isi.,_directed:J_against the order dated
17/11f.2009 produced at Annexure

((9)) .

2. ifietitionieiriihas filed an application before the

in O.S.NO.59/2006 under Order

XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure for

it _.”a.ppointi’–rier1t of Commissioner to make local inspection

2 measure the property.

%%~’.

6. Learned Judge by a considered order__._has

held that the material evidence already on re’Cbr:daV/tispé

sufficient to identify the property and to V’

measurement and also has obsefVe–d¢that

has reached final hearing and atdd”thi’eedtage

has been filed.

7. if the evidence _0’1:’1′ isfldsueffiejient to
identify and ascertain do not find
any justificat:ion.«:tn appopintj the’~vd”(3Q:nr}f11’ssioner at this
stage. Tria? fighAt1y_fiejVe.f:ted the application.

Petitiotn is dismissed.

Smt. id{.v:idye;vattt1,””AGA is permitted to {tie memo

“bf Vappeafance in four weeks.

sd/=4
JUDGE

kmv