High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Channappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Channappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IR' THE HIGH com: or XARKATAKA,    

DATEB THIS mm 101%! DAY OIEVJULY    ' 
HEFORE V %«&  1%f V
TI-IE I-IOWBLE MR. JUSTICE   :3
'WRIT PETITION Ho. 4749  

BETWEEN

3 SQICHANNAPPA'    _  % 
S/(Z) MANAc1s;Ag;T.%.iL%    'V  
AGED AB()U'T'=<}(}~--.Y.EAR'«S§-..___'   V V »

HARA:PAN'A};,sgLL1 1'; ' _ 
DAvA:;:A<3'ERVE'-D:sfI"% _  "V

ANJENEJYA "LAY(i:}E_,f_'If  Néjiég 

2 SR1 M K PRi&.BHfi.-K;5;R ..  '
szo NARAYANz'iCI~'E.AI£'-. " '
AGED' ABOU'1"*<.¥SVYEARS
=  AmEN73YA LAYOi.§T---'JJ'ARD N0 10
 ' 2~;AR.aP",xr¢mALL1
 ' DA'JAfé£;GE}RE --.ms':'
  '     PE'I'i'I'I()NERS

T' < _ : {§3y M/s._; AI}1F€x€§5¥"EiA NARDE as REVATHY ASSTS}

% « ?'i.z'm_I:)'~: 1 T

"mg STATE 0:2' KARNATAKA
., ' REP BY ITS SECRETARX'
" Davis' 011' MUJARAI
M S BKEILDING

BAN GALC}RE--560(){) 1 



2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DIST
DAVANAGERE

3 THE c:m£«:§«~* OFFICER 
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HARA-PANAHALLI = .
DAVANAGERE ms?    '    

 ;.4 _RESP{'{NDEN'I€S

(83; Sri: RAMESH B Awiigpanfivgjz'; FOR R1 65 R2 )

THIS WRIT PEYYITION 1'S_F:1.;E1i) 1;-*-'ND£'a§_R ARTICLES 226
AND 227 0;? THE.:.c>tJ'r APPLICATION OF MIND AND
(}PPOSEaD 'I'O_TH::_'§ rR1Nc:1,PL1é;s. 6;? NATURAL JUSTICE AND

THIS ui3ETfT{C')N,AA~fT§O~$?IiNG ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEAR:§m'e»}%.1N B~c}R'0UP,. THIS my THE COURT MADE

 % -'WE ~§'3314,I*§3?;&'ING"k'  ''''' ~ *

ORDER

_Ap§§é§itioners who claimed to be the tanants

finder Kaiamzna temple in respect cf the property

i1*_s ::J:1_eijtj_« possession, afieved by the notices of even

V. 12.3.2008 Axmexures F and G issued by the 3″‘

M

respondent calling upon them ‘ta vacate

within seven days, have presented this % 3 Q

:2. There is no opposition tojtfiis’ };:F:t£i:io23..n _” «

3. “Aflected must be ap1QI’aiscz§’.’__

creed flotsazing from the positulétes of éf sthe

Constitufion of fmiia. Tb.¢.;3etiti<:ai13f_:"–éiight tea efiiétended
an opportunity of giszked to vacate
the pmmises. _f.$i1_f1ce are not

preceded by"$11__a'"«'t1€§tic§:' of hearing, to the

petitionciir, H ::d'ei¢es_ — suffer from the vice of

vioiaiior; V' gustice.

A “‘T&he.”Lpefi1jon iSVéIic)Wed in part. Netices Artnexures

“”i3′..”:V fife quashed. The relief of manéamus

direzfé-i:1gV_’r*c:s!1A:§é3}f1de11ts not to disturb the petitioners’

” ” 5 i.*’,”‘–QC€.;11pati0::f1; in the circumstances, is Lmnecessazy.

2 i

< Sd/–

Judge

csg