Karnataka High Court
Macha Poojari vs The Land Tribunal Kundapura on 4 December, 2008
MW" w'f77'""?',ym%» WM -mnafimfiwuw' "'"WH wwwaw we" mmmmmxneuas. macaw LUUK! U?' %fiKNM¥%%fl% NMEW €;:€:mm"¥" C}? Kfifiwfiayfkfifi W§'»i'.3::*-W C
HI I~I§.GH SCIURT QB' Kfis.RHATAKA AT EANGAL€}RE_.
m*r1a:§3 THIS THE 4% DAY' 03* nacshmsa 2O£38:'--V
BEFORE
THE' HQNBL-E Mmmsmcm swam'
wan' PETETICSN NO.119T1<)
z
EASE-E. mama: v_ ;
ififfi L?;.'E'E mwrmm _
3-*-.2353 Aswr 68 &'EAR.s..'- _ '
3.=sm~:ANA "
mpmma ".3I;:sIu§§QT-E;
§'='£3'%3Bi§kFUEF; 'V ._
mm: DIETP;-ICET . 4' .
202%.? _frf£:3.fm'::;1i;a'3:::;:_: 5':'r5__ "232.
' ' ezrxnoiu
{Eff : i=:£aRBI{.§;K3§;.1i,"--.§§L:iv~; , ;
nu : A V
'V "1; . jfillifififii}
§::m:12%.r§§;.. . _
;.
L» %;2";'_'¥£IEE~.£1*'I;E'sz"Z'11';L:":1'fi'--,
24'md("'€h mimwmvmyz Nmi"¢wwm'>c\'.\m sn*mn"wm%\|k4saum»
2
-3;? THARfiEATHI 535 232.
... axsnonazlgs
{By an: R. magma, HGGP 303. R1 ..
53.1%, Lamar, AD'JQCA'I'E., FOR
aims wax? mrzwszmx Is_;.§<::xm:r2_*'tii#t:£::§.» égnixczz
22% AER 221 my Tsm cazsrsrxfjrixrxom'
§§e.:m:%s:r.~2 233 QUASH Tm: myznaasma ~:.':R.1:é13;P;'~ Am' 23:5-'-é:=;,.
m*.25"§,3.983. Eazasssa ax I'2a:s=--_R1..
2:}: 55: 3*"?-1.51 as <?rE.AN'l'I}«Ii5._ :::?c:<:1::y2;r~:'<;*z"~v._j:m--."-.r:*r IR?'
EESFE{2."3."' 2:11? mms BE3»';Rfl«EG* s*:.N':::.,;'*--3 LSEASURENG
3:3 szmwrg, my :;2PaHng_..__3}z:LLaGE, TQ.
mug: 3:51'. :5 =::a;~2c:_Em_z'En_.V
THIS WRIT V%§1:'z%1fc:»<::r¢s-{ v§§€f§§~«§ C
3
herein The said order datad:25.9.1981 is called in
quastéizsn in this petition.
*2. Emma the arder
passuafi in fanmur {sf '
wcupamy rights to m§"'1%.fid x ,
secaorgfi order passed without
hem-mg th: mmagggrig during
the wxxregg filcd by tha
fifititianag" are the rival
= figzesticrrn intimatirzg the
Cmurt ihavf.-_ fiije' 'settled the matter
amieabfif. _ the dispute among
1935.2 has nu ohjeaticn to
-. .» W» ,.. wwA"w<awna \m::r"*vM:;.5"'r:a:e=\rw:Wo,, w a
a.1m~;2:'i 'vV§:ge§tition and quash the impugnad
T gm gaa:ea:25m%g;T19s1 passed by the Land Tribunal,
Erm jam: mm in duly signed by both *
i.e., the petitiarnrgr and respondent No.2
‘ rsa-spestive counsels. The same is taken on
V3
‘4’V’w?-“*1’w”1e’ml1 my x’»’VeM”‘¥1,«*¢<1?w&'WS\S(""699c?l"'\'6clti'@.!¢I'"'£a !&'.*2&'fi«Wl*.'§ M«m¢'6ww.i¥ Wfi M.1't"'飔‘€hiNw5i'”£$ éHN’§&M’¥fi MW
4
reswde me counsel for respt>:r1dzent No.2 Sri. lathif
submiés mat respondent Ned has no cabjaecstien
qz.1a§1 the impugmd order.
3:. In view at’ the abmm, the n
ma.de:–
Empuwad Order
pamzi by the Land atands
%.
Sd/1″
Iudgé
g *§g;#;5}12.a9