High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Kodamma D/O Late Setty Gowda vs State Of Karantaka on 23 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Kodamma D/O Late Setty Gowda vs State Of Karantaka on 23 January, 2009
Author: Deepak Verma K.Ramanna
1!! 'ran: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT .. V

mrmn nus THE 23% DAY 03-    '

Pnzssm.  

THE Horrnm MR. .ms'rrcE--. ' %    
'rm; nozrnm ma. J{I8:'i_'§vQEv1{.RARi.%1§Hg»E
WRIT APms.:;i%'no§31:§:dB=.'2b6s (Lg;

BETWEEK:   %  V

1. Smi.KodaIIi:11a,_:3' _ _   "" "
D/9 Iate gfiiétiijitVGm*2V{1a,"-. *«-._V 
Aged abou}: "£58 Years',   . 3.
(Seam-r«Citi'z::n,    "  V  
a11y:,benefiAt}<}'_--»     . _'
R / at vikafudaiahigtrpaé V'illé1g§:; " .
Kasab'aVH'o¥::}i,'  '   
Holenazfisipur Taluk, " V. 
____H_{\_§_§\A.N DI$TRl3T.

, ' EV] <3 Th.fin33izegowda,
. _  D 1' 0. 1$st§:Vi.'~éity"{}owda,
" ._ fiigcd é1'.:,s§mt  Years,
RI at Muéaifihippe Viiiage,
Kasab-a Heibii,
 Holcmaifasipur Taluk,
' ..  DIBTRICT.

  'A.V N'::,.*1:jam1na,

 o Appaji Gowda,

Vé  V. ._ "D/0 iate Esctty Gowda,

Aged about 58 Years,
R/at Mudalahippe Village,

 



 §1ig}1 Court "I-'get, praying to set asidfi the Older passed in Writ
4:  'Pé§§.tionL.I§o. I18] 2003 dated 27.03.2068.

  f .   _ T awn vsmm .I., delivered the foiiowixxgz

Kasaba Hobii,
Ho1enarasipurTaluk,    
 -  3~?P'?§L5NT5-..V 

(By Sri.K.Raghave11dra Rao, Adv}

1. State of Kaxnataka,
Reptd. by its Secretary,
Deparmzent of Revenue,
M.S.I:3ui1diI1g, ' 

BANGALORE.

2. The Lanc1Tr§b_m3§1,   _  - 
Rwtd. byitfi S':"§<2retafY; =i     
Hoienaz*asip:1r'{fal3.1k;       .
Holenazaisipfifs».  »   =

3. Smt§'i?apammma,_»  » '

W/0 Anne Guwdag", [' ..  

1:) /'0 1atc2._Se!:1:y Civoxiéfia,  _

R)' at Mud'a3ahiPP*--3' Viiflégh, _

Kasaba Hobfi._ _ '" ' .. REBPONDENTS.

 _(B'y Si"i§Basava1a}' Karcddy, GA)

an 9.», a«__ ~J:__=P:__ *__er__ «I:

  is fiirzd under Section 4 of the Karnataka

'   §'his Writ Appeal coming on for Pm-liminaxy Hearing this day,

7&1)

 



interference in :

substance is hereiqydismiz.-§s:ede.e.  V' 

U:

respondent No.3 and therefore the same need not beV..iL§;;;1i;1'<:1ee;§.vi:;&a

suit for Palfiticm. Otherwise ihere is no reason \V}i![}f:’

survey numbers should have been excluded

when all other the projperties be1onging i:Q Gei’;ela»wa$

to be partitioned. No plausible be us
learned counsel for appellants dese{1:e«. ‘for eennsiéemble

6. According to: by the Tribunai as
aiso confirmed Jfidge, do not call for

:9: ” Veievoid of merits and

Sd/-3
I udgé

Sd/-a;

Iuégé

Ac§v.,_ ¢ 1

AT siiit T