EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TEES TEE 8137 SAY OF SEPTEMBER QCIQQ
IJRESENT
THE HOIWPBLEE MR. mi). §:§.:A:<:ARAN, cH2_:;;;é5 '-
Ar~21:>_
THE I–iON’B§,-E MR. JUs’f:A;cE;’VT.-zié.
Wan APPEAL rm. ‘z§5’32*2fii,*9g._gg;rg;.;§1,V
BETWEEN:
Sigidaranau, V
S/0. Si¢3deg_0w’zi_a”‘a1ia:3
Sodéa Hycié.goxz;*;§;a, . ”
Aged aboiit
Ka1°asawaé.iVifi3ge, ‘
Kothaflrii §i;<f:5ii3li, ui?-I ~-
Maniéya ‘I’_:51I1;aL;’*_é.: _ _* .. APPELLANT
(83; M33, :3, Namg :$s;s+;;{£::;;ies- Afivs.
far A.pp§1’:.}. ._ A ”
W
» ‘ Vi’:-‘3th3,§a1-;s5i:a_,
_ , 2?.*.i3_§{323s.V_’I”3’:3z”i1:;::_}i:;;:.V;,»’a’£h,
‘ -._?eia:1:’1’j¢a Qifsfiict, Ev’.ia:t3dya.
Eitecufifve Qficer,
?a:1c§1ayath, Manéyag
” ii . ” uF”re$ifi1e11f,
‘ ‘ ‘éiiandya ‘§’a1u1< Panchayat,
Iséanéya.
” VW”e:h Mast: Y::;S// K0
‘ ;M§k*
contention of the agapeilant and the fifth msp0ndeVni:_»Ca11n0t
be accepicd am} namraily the pmpert}-‘ has to as
individual property of the petiitionsrs aaixd
the above said facts, it is clear that we ; 2
was justified. in hoiding that figs .
irzdividuai property and i;”3V_’vijp;§1si3i.t1vg’ OI”§€”i”Vé’
datfid 26.12.2002 am to the
above said masomn§”«–§{= gn:?.er passed by {he
laaxneii smgia.,;udg¢…:s. ,gjg.sfi§g§:; not suiihr from
an}; arm: :;;?;§r:.’i;1ii§:1″fe3’ence in this intxa.
Court that there is no merit in
this mder:
‘éiiémnissed.
,. %g%%_ s&%
Chiei }1E.S’£iC8
sd/~
JUDGE