IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARRATAKA
WRCIIIT BENCH AT IDHARWAD
DATED nus ms 873 DAY or § " »
nsmrm
ms HOIPBLE gamma _
wan' pmmos no. or *~ A
SETWEEE:
KRISHNA s/0 SRINIVASA RAD i3ES¥iFA1\7IDE
55 YEARS, occ: A1:>v1s:;-ml}: 'V
AGRICULTURE "
Rssrnxm A'If.v§«::~I';<:AT19E'r " '
BAGALKC)'I'_ . 2
gnv%sti:§¥a%gV% Anv)
1. ; 'THE R';3;G:oNAL"cdMM1ssIoNER
~ BEi.C}AUM'REGIDN
mm: 2§E9t_i:rr¥ INSPECTOR GENERAL 0?
- REGISERATION (EN'I'ELLiGENCE)
BEL(}§--.UM mvrszon
% zB'EaLGAUN£
" K 3. : 14:33 msmzcr REGISTRAR
. _ NEAR VIDYA(}iRI
" BASAVESHWAR ENGENEERING COLLEGE
SAKRI BUILDING, BAGALKOT
{)ISTRIC'I': BAGALKOT
4. THE SENIOR SU B-REGISTRAR
BAGALKOT
(BY am R.K.HA1'II, Heep) V
THIS PETITION IS FILED=.AUNI)'l.?§i'-'2"'Ai:§'*I"I{4.i;s':';S.. 225
TO :
1. QUASH THE IMPUG§;ED 'C')RV3A;_):l;-§R DATED
2s/5/ 2001 PASSED BY THE"'RE'£§POI§DENT"Nb.3, com
012' WHICH PRODUCED '._AI;ON'€}' wrrn THE WRIT
PE'I'I'PION, AS PER ANNEX1r12:«:+A. _
2. QUASH. I1\IIF*UGN.'.%;_D.___.VV.TORDER DATED
15/ 1 1/2006:-_'VPA;i~3S.,i£D' «B? Tm; RESPONDENT No.3, A
COPY OF WH1’Cf{“‘iS PR()DU.(}E£’£,fixS PER ANNEXURE43′.
THIs%%PETmoN “£;;’£}IyH C} ONFOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING mask *31!A_Y’, ‘THE COURT MAZDE THE
FOLLOWING; %
A % _q:2DER
the petitioner is that the appeal filed
by on merits by the first respondent,
though Atizc filed as back as in the year 2003434.
The records reveal that the petitiencr purchased
. bearing survey No. 158 xncasming 11 acres 24
for Rs.1,20,000j~ (as depicted in the sale deed). The
AND 227 or THE coNs’1*1f1’IJ’1*I<3N'<)p' 1N1}IA»?RA¥rNG%kk
sale deed was presented for reg'st1'ation on __f"x'1_1_é
Sub Registrar having felt they " _ 'V ,
undervalued, impoimdad the
oltiext-ad to pay the additional 'V ;
Rs.1,93,333/- and the mgisfiééfién recs)' o.f: R§.3:'§;f?80/- (in
total Rs.2,27,133.25
3. the Sub Registrar
the pctit:io;?1ér”:,.T%;t:ii’é:1:i1 btzfore the Divisional
Commissicnfi, “Isame was transfened to
xaeputy-._ of Regisuation (intelligence)
Belgaum The same was not decided by
the Inlspestqgyficncral of Registxafion (intelligence).
aw piéztitioner filed w P No.20’5%/2005 ‘before this
writ petition came to be disposed of on
{he first mspondent to hear the
“pc§:ifio;:ic:r; on 19.9.2995 and thcmafter to decide the matter
A 91:-,r,n;3r1ts within two mmtzths.
Ev”
4. According to the petitioner, he VV
the Deputy Inspector General of ~Reg:2stx’afio1_1i”
Belgaum Division, Belgaum, Whi<:;13..V1n%e§$A'
authority on 19.9.2005, but»f1V:1e~.appeé1 is is one V
this date.
5. It isanpt zespondent is new the éfV'the same, the first Iespondene appeal on merits as
thfz eeoords are not traceable in
the ofiee pf the the first respondent shall
xeconsfiruct with the assistance of appellanfs
a The firef””fevspondent shall hear the appeal on
mmilths f!\€)I£E this date and pass the orders
0: .ffifi–;a.eeoIdance with law, deciding the appeal within
metaths fmm this date, it is made clear that, if the
A “ii is already dispescd of by the appellate authority, it is
‘ n ¢;1t necessary to reopen the same. Writ petition is disposed
” 5; accordingly.
K ff’
\2
it is open for the petitioner to me appIicatig:ii’i§€jf<3:f:¢V':.!}(1:j¢« _
appzzilatt authority to return the :I"1"~..
such applicatricm is filed, the fag
accordance with Law.