Karnataka High Court
Murthappa vs The Deputy Commissioner … on 26 February, 2009
Haw:
n wwn-wmn Wm evrxmmvrmarmtum Maw?" VII" 9!%«l'\fil'fl'*&!l'*'El\l'\ l"iI%34E"H huufli 'Jr Ht.AKNfl§.AE\R <
IN THE HIGH sonar 0: KAAHATAKA. 3ANsAwaE "'»T.
ammo mrs mm 261'?-I new or FEBRUARY 2".:r..t'1'$
swans
'P1-{E I-II::;<.;,A». "
3. 'szfb.
I/O £.{A.'PEv~..'1'HI'P£'ANNA, 45 mags,
raga? C/'av 'if.Ko':'AxDAam,
".?_E:AC§-{ER,""0PP T0 sew. uaau SCHOOL,
._ Ki3£ahGCéTE, zmmaanuasa mum.
. . RESPONDENTS .
sm. M.c.m:;AsHaa;s, HGGP ms 31 s. 9.2..
931.1%. mmmmau, Anvo-can FOR 33)
THIS am. ammo K315113311 mrrcnss 226 ANI3 22′? :3
THE GGNSTITUTIOR OF INEIA To QUASH ‘I*H’£ éafififi
V1″
wwn
a WW-wmm Wm l\fl’IIEB*l(‘\Ii#”%HVo.#°’» mswn WI?’ Kfiflmfififlflf’ filfifgg Rwy”. V?” Q
Govcrnxrzent Plaader, which saws that tne.. =1:’afm£i:g
haw man said in 3 public: auctiem in _
non–paymant af land revenue. ?ng:afa£é;*i}£i#dpna “‘
arror er illegality in the i@pu§nad&o§d§f, #h§ch
calls for intarrereace. $’v’a__z1 c£’f:§£wiae;,”‘ ap,4_vg.ra§und
is made cut calling for in£$=x1;»fae.3;fent’£ a~.–
7. For tha ab§n}€V:’A’ the petition
is rejected. !~4[;”2v”-:;£33t::iVLV”‘ :t: V V’
Judge
H513