IN THE HIGH coup: OF KARNATAKA AT§A§q<§2é;;C:.RE
DATED THIS we 13*" DAY er 3i.i'ie{Y
?RESENT;'& w . . é %
THE HGNBLE MR. 3us§'m:;': :<}.:..MA.n:3i;rA1A:"éf;~; f/)_ LN
1 %ANDA.' " 1 ;
THE HoN’a.L_r-: MRV,%3{isnc§_ RAVI ‘M_ALIf§V|ATH
w.A”; 3,433 »3 {LR}
BETWEEN: «
S3Ej’5AS§_%flPA’j_: % « %
Sign mfg S’RIA.[5C5.DD{ABA.:1A
sorz*:.==uRis%%.Hf.*%B’:;I,% ” ,
‘ !’§iELAMAN€»ALA’*«TALUK
8A¥31GAL{}RE..vDIS’FRICf
M _ % APPELLANT
__ {B_;_Y SR.i'”R,_B,f:1ADAS JVAPPA, ADV.)
%
H * TAHSILDAR NELAMANGALA TALUK
..vNEL}5\MANGALA
,. “$:ANGALORE RURAL DIST
SR1 N S RAMA RAD
S/C} SR1 SAMPANGIRAMAIAH
MAJOR
R/G YAGGUNQA GRAMA, SOMPURA HOBLI
NEIAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALGRE RURAL DIST
AND ALSO AT NO 14, IOTH MAIN, 13TH CR(3$S
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-03
3. SR: KRISHNA MURTHY
510 SR: SAMPANGIRAMAIAH
MAJOR ._
R/O YAGGUNDA GRAMA, SGMPURA HOBL1 ”
NELAMANGALA TALUK, Bi§NGALt}R.E RL}’RAL..E>_IS”{_ j
AND ALSO AT NO 14, 10TH’ MAIN, 13TH–.C¥{0SS._.
MALLESWARAM, BAN’?!-\LORE_~f33 1 *
” V V-._..§”.RESVPONDE?iTS
(BY SMT. A.D.VIDYA, TAQA AND :s.RI’3.PRAM01) ADV.
ma R2 AND R3) _ :
THIS mm FILED _ uzésw <:5s=% KARNATAKA HIGH
coum ACT.?RAYIh;§G TO'V.'SET'~A_S_IDE":THE can:-:3 PASSED m
we wRIT._VPE'§3I'[IQvN!~i?§);18_S?9f06"$ATED 14/2/2007, ETC,
TH:sv5';émi1T'%A9%'E§L15 EQMING on FOR PRELIMMARY
HEARING mzs'. »Ti)A¥,"1_MANJUNATH.3. DELIVERED THE
FOLLQWING;~._
v JUDGEMENT
is detay of 537 days in filing the appeai, The
. * c:a'u§e' by the appeiiant does not constitute sufficrient
:uia;:s§eV.£¢" cendane the deiay. Therefore, we do not see any
AA 'TLc;.ro:.v:V§'1d ta condane the deiay.
2. Hewever, we have heard the learned ce2.2nse¥ fer
parties on merits ago and after hearing the case an merits
9*”
we aiso noticed that appeiiarit has ne case on *tt:ie:’rjiLts§”f_or the
fciilcwing reasons.
3. Admittedly, the [arid ciaimmy iieiiaipieum. ‘is’:
Service Inam land uncierihg prd’vi§iens ofv*’§<§fii:'atii_if;éi"viiiage
Officers Abolition Act 'Hie-V. has iieen
grantee} to the claimed
to be a tenaiit underifiiigg had filed Form
No.7 be1'é_.")il'4£'£';;i.i:i'-fVfiIE:.v::–.&L£i;i"i& ':_":"éi:':i'$iiV'i'i'ivi:.=h_«i..,:V.7 Nelamangaia, which
accordiiig However, appeiiant has not
fiieiii "the iand under Act.
V iand granted its the respcncients
Zgvaiid .’3″4″a;ipieii”ani:”‘ fiied an appeai before the District
. . ‘3£i.¢3f{3’é, jV’Ba;.ngaii§}é Ruraf District, Bangaiore in MA No.
appeai came to be dismissed on 1?–11-2006.
A’£hai_ive§:”ii;ji’iiAg the same appeiiant had flied writ petition in
_ w.”9.fi~:o. 13579/2005, which writ petition came to be
u “«..rié:jected on 14’-02-280?, on the ground that the agipeiiant
had not flied any appiicatian for regrant as required under
8″/,
the Act. Challenging the iegafity and correctness pf the
same the present appeal is fifed by the appeifant.
5. During the course of argumentg
counse! fer appeliant famy conceded that :%i§>t’._t’§!£§d.,
any appfication for regrant. If apf:§¢ij$é”r:t
any application fer regrant, co.n5§derin’g_ the casé c.f app’éi;l!éVtst ” ,
does not arise. The Eearned ssngag;u¢g¢%mTa:sm;ssea the
writ petition on the saic§: _§rou:’_fi3.§.tT?§gréf~;sre, wé not see
any error in the orderwqjf l:ea”rhéd1′..’jv$}–E’ng§e Judge in
dismissing tiiié”i#:’rit.__Vf5eti”t§:£§m.which cans for interference by
US.
in *.:h’Ae””‘cv§.zt+::1«3mstar:ces, IA-{[2008 for ccndoning
*.,théV’dafa§<.§né'vt:fie. appeai are rejected.
33/'9
Iudgé
Sd/*2
VK Iucigé.