Maktumasab vs The Deputy Commissioner Haveri … on 6 August, 2008

 

IN THE HIGH COURT op' KARNATAKA
cmcurr amen AT DHARWAD »
DATED THIS THE em DAY OF AUGUSI' 1:   
BEFORE   A u H   
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIcE 'RAV 1I    ' '

WRIT PETITION NO.162f§vi--OF  (GN:§RAE;s;--Vv  

BEHNEEN:

M ,  
S/oImamsabTambu1iYe§dga1j* V
A8656 Years, _. v   _. 
CmmAgimmnm;

R/0 Shiggaoh

Tq-Shiggaon  'R    ~ . % 
Bistzflavcri; *5;   .. PETFFIONER

(By M] s:}'v--.R.i{}=§'d~:7§>¢atcs)

AND:

 , 1.  édznmissioncr,
-. °Havé:I'i Difif.  &
Havvezj-331.%11c;V _

 *   V Ciommissioncr,
Sub ._9n.savaz_;ur~581 1 17

V . Distfiavtfifi. 

 - "  'The Zilla Panchayat,
'  ".i_ts3?}xecutive Engineer,
 __ T~_Z;'P.Engineczing Dn.
  A'!-Ier;reri--581 110 .. RESPONDENTS

9&3…»

submitted that without any acquisition the respondents are

attempting to interfere in his possession over

without any authority of law.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for t]:;e’i”p:etitioiici§.i’ K

do not than’ I: it is just and proper thstia’ writ of

could be issued. The petitioner

altemative and efizicacious fi1ii1g–.a’supi_”t, to
protect his right for possessi<i5n_. ovei14"flme-iland in
question. A Writ of ii fliiemfoze not an

appropriate mngcefiy in V"

5. For I do not find any ground to
entertain this petition is rejected.
flowevér, the-. leaxiied counsel for the petitioner

” «–.subv!:1jii3;s;>_t1:1at he iiss’*-b–een now advised to file an appropriate

remedy under law.

ML”