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
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;