IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'B1_E MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B, H1NcH1G'E_R1 .
WRIT PETITEON NO.18145 oE201G--(Sc;{ST_)VT"
BETWEEN:
SMT AKKAYAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
KOTHANUR VELLAGE
KASABA HOBLI , _ ._ 3 A v
SHEDLAGHATTA TALUK .Af..V..'Y_PETITiONER
(BY SR1 RAT-TAMATHZULEA'SHARIFE, A'D'a'OCATE)
AND: 3 2:.-. . =.
1. STATE G'F"K.ARlx?ATA}ۤA. _ .
REPREESENTEDEY SECRETARY _ ~
REVENUE DEPA.RT'MENT'»A.
VIDHANASA-UDHA ' "
aANGA:_oRE--" 560001.. A
2.__ THE4ii?EP'e3TY CO'I~W|iSSIC:NER
' _CH{.Ci<AB.ALL.APUR DISTRICT
, cH;c;:AE.A;,;A«R_UR
3. A"'TH«E_ ASSviS«'.{Ai\ixTvEOMMESSIONER
CivfICKABAL!;f\P'UR DIVESION
CHI-EKAEAELAPUR
" SMT. RAAEAKKA
V. ,, WIOBYATAPPA
* _AG_E_('::.5 YEARS
. KEEB NARASIMHARABU
A "S/O BYATAPPA
AGE 45 YEARS
BYATARAYAPPA
Ix)
S/O BYATAPPA
AGE 40 YEARS
RESPONDENT No.4, 5 & 6 ARE
R/A KOTTANUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK …._RES.PON_iDE’NTS- _ V’
(BY SR1 R DEVDAS, AGA)”» ‘_
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER /ARTEIECLEES
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,P’RAYING’.TO ISsL»i’E~A__wRIj;T OF
CERTIORARI & QUASH THE ORDERS –PA*S_SED THVE’-.R2′,~, WHEREIN *
THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER IS DISMISSED BYTAHE’ R2; IN CASE
No.RASCST 10/09-10 DATED.O;S.04.20y1.0,_APRODUCED”AISHANi\i-A & TO
PASS ANY OTHER EQUITABLE O__RDER;AND ETC,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING C’TI\i’:’F{‘_)R.~«£E§RAif)u’Ei{S THES DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING::-” . – V ”
The pevtitioner’E’vh.as_:Zraipsedw”the challenge to the order, dated
5.4.2010 passed» byv ‘the Commissioner in Appeai
No.RA.SC4.jS’i”:1O:2009510. The said appeai was fiied challenging
thefl’AssistanthfCom.missioner’s order, dated 19.01.2009, which
ii:seif”v_va”$ .asv:a..V,VCoAh’séquence of Deputy Commissioner’s order,
Vnwdated 27:01 . 200%’; A
:”2._Th.e=–f>eputy Commissioner has passed the impugned
A”._.’ord.e’r;._statii’ng that he cannot take a View different from the view
‘”ta’i<en_.r§by the Deputy Commissioner's eariier order, dated
it'».V:2'7:V01.2007. The earlier order was passed by the Deputy
FISH.
4
.3
Commissioner of the undivided Kolar District. The latter order is
passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Chickballapur District. In
the absence of the challenge to the order, dated 27.01-:’?..Q07
passed by the Deputy Commissioner of the
District, no relief can be given in this petition.
3. This petition is therefore rejected
to the petitioner’s side to present a. duly iconstituted.”.w:ri’t ‘pei;iti”on”–,
raising the challenge to the Deputy”Commissionerisforide-r,VVVdated
27.01.2007.
4. Needless to observe thlatliallli :the.._:0co.’n.te’ntions are kept
open.
5. No order..asv,to’costs’;
Sd/’5
Judo?
4: ~–‘.:Vbvr” 10-‘ it