High Court Karnataka High Court

Khimji H Patel B/O Lalji Heerji … vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 9 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Khimji H Patel B/O Lalji Heerji … vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 9 July, 2008
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & S.N.Satyanarayana
, .:.1f," .:ST1¥i_'E 65' KARNATAKA

T  "BANGALORE 1

IN THE HIGH coum OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9113 DAY OF am? 2003
PRESENT % % A
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE  1.; 

AND

THE HOWBLE MR.JUSl'iCE  "

c.c.c. NO;5.':3?3~,'20€56~.. % I {E 
BETWEEN    

1 KHIMJIHPATEL _   --.
B/0 LAL.Jn:1EER.:I.PATELx_   
AGED so 'YRS,  --S,AW'2?u7fiLL
NAGAMA3%Gi§L.A s¢0m_,"MA._n'9Y-A; 

2 SMF.MANiBEB}.AR;3UNV1PATEI.
G11) VALJ}  PE'ri::L'*--- '
AGED 42 'ms, SR1  SAW mu.
EAGEELAEGM.-A ROAD,' MANDYA

. . . OOMPLAINANTS

(By'Vs1§fr;-%ifAzEE1§£I"{E:{EGDE , ADV.,)

---- * REP_;3Y rrs SECRETARY
   DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Mi s EUILDING, me AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

 



_ Q diso§)4¢'§(iic:1.1ce V at'   issued by the Division
   in W.A.No.16»-45/2004 and the

L  wherein the respondents in the writ

‘. . «fife to iwuc patta/gxamzs mafia to
W H therein subject tn the perfarmanoe of-the
imposed by Law, m they have been it:

2 SRH%&&MmflMfiKM{
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
M%KUWHmSfl§CfiNMNDW&

p’ A” K –.

(By Sri saxnwm RSREMATH, AGAFOF:’ mi’ a;’R2 ):” A’

000 FILED I118 11 aa712.__VoF ‘;*H7E Cowman
comers ACT PRAY}HG’ =.}INn1A1f1::%%._:::o%:§TEsaPr
mocmanmes AGAINST ‘I’HE’._ msmmamwm: ma
IZRSOBEYING ORDER mp.22.;::;2eQ5 PASSED mw.A.No.
4330/ 2oo3.(w), VIBE Armr:xLrRa;gA. ”

THIS C.C.C. COMiN€:~ .QN’ ‘-§ftéJR”.’C}i§:I}£?}i§S -mas DAY,
sasnmrr .s., M4%'{)_f$_’ T}-I13 FQLLOW§’Nj_G’, _

M ¢_QRDER: %%%%

This oomplainmg wiflful

bf

fl of lands -and idfizfimtion of the 131163

in dispute.

2. Notice was issued

additional objections have

pattas have been issued is of the
order passed by this ‘A ‘ A H

-. ‘dmma1:ion of the

i
land is x1oi: from the hakku patm
that the one which is in
%

eomplied with tlm M-‘av-‘.Ie%M :

iwued

H Vv by Urfler it is elem’ that

cfirection issued by this court and

of the mrerment made in the matcmmt of

\,/’>’

objections, we hold that there is no willful A’
of the direction issued by this Court. 11
made clear that ‘3’ the patina docs'”‘i1ot ‘fie V
lands in possession of the
them to make appropriate V. ‘ the
contempt petifion is said

observafions.