K N Jayadeva vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 1 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
K N Jayadeva vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 1 April, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF  
DATED Tms THE 18'!' my 6? ' %  
  k  %   
THE HON'BLE me; ..JUS'ii¢fi§    
WRIT PETITION  (1<;voA)
BETWEE:     % 

1 KNJAYADEVA       
 "  
SI 0% Nfifimm '$751-WAR
R/0 KIIMIXJR %

HONHALI  .    
DAVANQER 

% _        mrmonm
 S§FI*3H'«M_DODDAMANI,ADM ) %

 ;1 main or: KARNKPAKA
  BY  SECRETARYTO oovmmmmm
3 'V  DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING
 = -D.R".AMBEDKARVEEDHI
 BANGALORE 560 001

  TI-iEDEPU'l'YCOMMIS8IONER
% % ~ DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
uavmuxm.-2

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANGEHE SUB DiVlSi0N
DAVANGERE



petition filed by the pctmoncr' '  fine. gppgalf! M M    ,  n 

Asst.  ' under      L  

 .

2. Acconnng to neamcd
counsel y ‘_ . said obscrv%
was not the dispute pcndmg
be:mLt1:e g 136(3) of
the Act which relates to the

1I1utVz~1_1:vionx¢at1V_’3,r.. is not wriaxsly disputnd by Mr.

wculd clearly ma’ mate’ that the Deputy

‘ Qcamntmsiosnerhas exceeded his jurisdiction in that

theappcalbctba’cthcAsst.Cmnmissimcrun(k:1’th¢PPCL
Actisnotma1mamab1e.Appamnuymcmummabmyor
thcappcalbcfowctllclksst

Act was not the subject matter. indeed, is

pLzrch@ of a portion of the land =
The dispute rclatcd only in respects: %
Rcvennc Act. When that is that

4. it is to be mam:

that the is on the basis of 5; sale

by the pmdeccmor at the
that is the case, I am own View that the

»iif with the omer of tin

to the mutation may is not wanmmd.

Consequently, the petition stands dsuposed of;
confi1mingthcordcx*pawedbyfl1crcvcnucautIxo:i:ics
mdamcflm11%offln RwmmcA¢

WWW” »

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *