IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAN£I}\LQR'E I' M
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY t)w.1IN.E,
BEFORE % IL
THE HOIWBLE MR. JUS'FI€'l:_E:3"~E?AhrI.MQHAN:*R§3I§§Y
wan' PETITION (%SCg--s'r~1'%
BETWEEN
sRIBRsRINIvAs-- _ " % ~
S/OLATEB}?Z1;'IlVI;"J1-."&f£ =:
AGED 52 YEAR'S * _ I
PRESENTLY5 R/A5fI'».FL§E';T N'Q';v41G.,.I'
MANGAM V_ELI'{'E" : lI25R1'MENTs A .. I
80 FT. R'OA1},[..I7ZSR 1;Am'Uf1f" _
BANGALOR_E~56€).V}{)2'I' I ~ PEFITIONER
(By Sri : 'G'-.P4API 'REIVJi'iZ.):Y,..
. 'I I. I V" THE} {).i3;'i?UTY CITJMMISSIONER'
-VBANGALQRE RURAL DIS'"f'RIC'I'
BANGALQFEE
2 A *~..__THE .I~I$£sIS*1'ANT COMMISSIONER
DZODBALLAPUR SUB--DIVIS!ON
x J BANGALORE
$121 NARASIMHAIAH S/O NAGAPPA
MAJOR BY AGE
R/O BEGUR
SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKCYTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
4 NARAYANAPPA S] O NANJAPPA
MAJOR BY AGE 3/
wk
SONNALIPURA VILLAGE
SULIBELE HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL Drsmliqrr T?
SMT NARAYANAMMA .
w/0 LATE MUNIBACHAPPA
MAJOR '~ '
YUENNAGUNTE
SULIBELE HOBL'!._ V. M
HOSKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURA_L DIS'f'RI:YT--"'~~. " V
SR1 CHAIQERAPPIE.'
MAJOR 3-*r._AGE---- . 4' . .5
YE_bfNAGU'?%T;§} VELLAGE' «
SULIBEl.E HO'BLl_
HQSKO'IfE'*".A,;,U§{ .,
BANGALORERURA.L"D1S'TRICI'
S] 0 LATE' 1v:;:; _:NIBAC HAPPA S M A
SR1 rsiA':2AYANs\§iAisa?7
;S/Q LATE' MUNIBACHAPPA
"'MA,JoI,§ av AGVEW "
_ YEMNAGUNTE VILLAGE
» SLKLIBEVLE HOBLI
HOS'¥§OTE}.TALUK
R "'vBANGALGRE RURAL DISTRICT
sRi ARAIQIESH
S] O LATE MUNIBACHAPPA
.. " MAJOR BY AGE
= YENNAGUNTE VILLAGE
SULIBELE HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
SR! MUNNE GOWDA
S/O LATE MUNIBACHAPPA
MAJOR BY AGE xv'/b\
appellant nor the respondents or their l
were present whence the Deputy Commissioner
the case for orders on 6~8-2094? >
the appeal by order Annexiii*e}”Df’. 2 writ
petition. J l 3 A Z
2. There?._iisi§¥:oi_1sipc:ier*§.>.l5le submission of
the learned that it was not
permissible :’Dep1it3z__Commissioner to decide the
appeal on ‘absence of the parties and
V the only option’ to him was to dismiss the petition
not decide the case on merits. This
learned counsel is supported by a
V V’ sdecision 3″.l5’u}l Bench of this Court in the case of K.
vs. sure or KARNATAKA &
In the result, this petition is allowed. The
*:oi*c’ier dated 6-8~2007 AIIIICXIIT6-“D” of the Deputy
i ‘Commissioner in appeal is quashed and the proceeding
nannntran-scx-an
A .l)'”.90i\1’U?§. J6″?
remitted for considaatbn afresh after a
reasonable opportunity of _
concerned and to pass (l’d6I’S _sf:1’ictVI’y— A
with law.
KS ——–