Mrs. K A Ponnamma @ Somavva vs Shri Ashwath Narayana Gowda on 14 December, 2010

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANQALQRE
DATED THIS THE 1411] DAY OF DEC EMB«E.lF{,V~.2_G'.iiE  

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. .JLfsT"IcEt1\:   

AND 

THE HON'BLE MR. JUTSTICEE-A1§AL1

BE! WEEN

Mrs.K A Ponnamma

@ Somavva,   _  = _  ; «V
w/0.(late] Sh:-i.T_K'~D Agppanila;   .. ____ H
aged about     
Bang00r'JiHagef""" 4' '
Cherambane"~PD_st, 3
Madil(éfi'TaIuk, "ff  

Kodagu Distri{.<t;.._»"'T  A

[ By Sri'    

AN 1;)': 'V A

  Ashwath Narayana Gowda,

V _  A.  D'ep1 ;.ty Commissioner,
" -.  Kodagu; District, Madikeri.

V «V 2.   S Hiriyanna,

Tahasildar, Major,

 A'  Somwarpet Taluk,
* .  Kodagu District.

RP N0. 1x43¥8,:: 2,010 

.. Petitioner

.. Respondents

\/



3

This RP is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read
with Section 151 of CPC, praying to review the order
dated 11.3.2010 in CCC No.1003/2009 and set aside
the said order and allow the review petition.

This RP coming on for orders this day,  J
Passed the following:    
ORDER

This petition is to review
11.3.2010 on the ground that T?

proceedings, the governrr;’en–t_ order 1 the land 1′
subject to ctoriditiolisthat ~ to be

paid. On submission ‘i’nl:g1d.e”that:vthefniiornent the amount

is paid. i–th_el”‘p_os’s¥:”§ssio.ri wotild-v.b.e7granted. Recording the
said :’sub1nission_,4l”thei.__’ee_n’tempt proceeding is closed.
Now th’eus’ai.d order”is_to__.be'”review’ed. The petitioner was

entitled to”g1f_antV’vfree_ “cost and this order was passed

i11._”t:he:__eor}ten1p’i:proceedings Coming in the way of the

,petitioner*,agit:ating his right. We do not see any

the order on that ground. If the

goxrernvineiit order grantiiig him the iand on payment of

pet,’§..tion’e1’-isAentitted to grant of the land free of cost, the

1/

3
Rs.70,000/~ would be Contrary to the said right of the

petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to ehailenge the

said government order on its merit and in ae_Co.fdaI1,Vce

with law. The observation made in the c.or;{erri’pt

proceedings at para–4 would no.irco«:ne the it

petitioner agitating his right. If

the petitioner, the forum’d–e’e’idbinghV”i;he’ sjshalldt

adjudicate the said i’ight i.1’idej§eniient1yhit’1AAaejcordance

with law without the aforesaid

of.

Sd/m
JUDGE
“”” i Sdgm
EUDGE