I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAi;Di§F;' ~., DATED THIS THE 19%; DAY OF NOVEMBER, PRESENT»w-_ THE HONBLE MR.JU'sT:.cEi:\I A~1&UA2L.W.,",V THE HONBLE MR.qUsTIc_1§ N 'sATYAImRAj(ANA W.A.N0. 5'2'3.?;/2éQ9:.'.»' (S'c3._'/[s"1'i A/W MISC.W.Nos. 5522 D&*552_3V 2010 BETWEEN: 1.
“f:{‘”B3} SR1 SHIVASWAMY, ADV.)
RANGAP_pA”” 4.
AGED ABQLr:_r’;32 Q
AGED A–E5OIJ’l’=57’l 1- ‘
TH1MMA1A1~1, _ .
AGED ABGU_’l’ 5.45-YEARS.
D}; **** ” ”
« .AGr:’.D ABQLIT 52 YEARS,
_ SIDDAWA
‘AGED AI:;0_UT 47 YEARS
1 TO 5 ARE SONS OF
D LATEDODDAIAH AND ARE
R/AT BITTANAKURKE,
‘ ‘KDRA (HOBLI)
“ETUMKUR [TALUKJ
. APPELLANTS
pas.sed by the learned Single Judge who has
1’d.eeIi__n.ed’ :{Q.,v_iriter’fere with the order passed by the Deputy
_.’1ia\vr§(3 setlaside the alienation and directed resumption of
It . la1%1’d.–F
3
THIS APPEAL ALONG WITH MISC.APPLICA!3′-tC_)NS
COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 4′ PJK
KUMARJ.. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ” ‘
The appeal came to be disrrii.sse:;i’te’r
with office objections on 13-4l–‘2QVlO. ‘I-Ellis to
order the application — I” there
is delay of 47 days in tlaei–_saitl.__appli_eati0r1.Hone more
application — Misve.W.55_22V:/20 ‘»’l7i)pVrl’l”eond0natior; of
delay. Acceptiigigfltliep r.~ausea;_ affidavits filed in
support of are allowed.
Delay the appeal on 13-
4-2010 reealledfldjlae is restored to its original file.
I2″. The appellant lias preferred this appeal challenging
Conimisvsiener as well as the Assistant Commissioner who