IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT..!{j<A~~'%1%}j--.i f
CIRCUIT BENCH ATj%pHARwA;3I J %
DATED THIS THE 2 181' my Q9
BEFa3E <i_ _
THE HON'BLE
WRIT PETITION L2{3'c§?;{(;«::,R--12R/ sum
BETWEEN-' . AA .%
Aged ab0.1;f'54 ytgarsg. _0c_c:Agricu1ture,
R/ 0 Iieginaiiai.
Dist B-elgaumf " .. PETITIONER
(By Sri Advocate)
.....
% Thev.vS't3;tt:iof Karnataka,
B33 its" to Revenue Dcpartrnent,
M.s;Bufldin.g; Vidhana Veedhi,
Baxt1gaZOre.. ~'
--- 2., Thevijheputy Commissioner,
" « _ B¢1g:_.=.u1m District, Beigaum.
Q}. Smtlviallawwa W / 0 Appayappa Patah,
"Aged about 38 years, Occ:Hous«e Hcald work,
R] O Neginahal,
'1'q:Ba1'1hongal, Dist:B<-algaum.
4. Sri Basavaraj S / 0 Siddappa
Jailikatfi, aged about 35 years,
Occ:Private Service,
R] O Neginahal, 'l'q:I--3ai1honga1,
Dist; Belgaum.
5. Smtfiangavva W/O SicidappaW__
Jalikatti, aged about 58 year$,_V '
Occzflouse Hold work, "
R/O Neginahal, Tq:Ba1'1honga1,"=,_ _V
Dist:Belgaum. . " :4 '
6. Smt.Kasturi W/0 Madivalétppa " V
Kalled, aged abogt 3o%yea;g% - '
Occzhdadhanabizarii 'Fq 53 913:: ' "
Dharwada. §EsPoN1:)ENTs
(By E33~--I & 2,
S11 R.A,Mac11a_kar"n1r; .Ad.s(c")§ate, for R-3 to 6}
AA A~.}";0-0--o-
is filed under Articles 225 85 227
of_'t;'i1e_ Cfigmstitution of India praying to call for records
icy the case of the petitioner from the Deputy
'Ci?1:&;::aisSior1r:r"ax1d quash the impugned order dated
29__--3~20()7- iride An.nexure--C passed by the 2"
resiponderit.
Tfiis writ petition coming on for preliminary
in 'B' goup this day, the Court made the
*f;oIIoW1ng:-
<$é',,g----
ORDER
On a Revision Petition filed by responsieiiti
to 6 before the Deputy Commissioner; ” ,tne ”
Deputy Commissioner passed
Revision Petition by setiingeasidei the L’
the Assistant Commissionere.anfld.tt1eL’}C)epiityAT;aIit1asi1dar.
Accordingly, the caseiitrss A. the Tahasildar,
Bailhongai, forfresh in accordance
with parties.
2. tiavfe counsel for the petitioner.
8. _The for the petitioner submits
o_rder”oi’*–reinand is bad in as much as the
‘.i5e.::(iete1’rnined by the Tahasidlar has not been
the impugned order. Inspite of the three
page ” order, the learned counsel for the petitioner
“”x.hsu,bi:1its that no reasons have been given while passing
,,._§§”1e impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order
shows that the Deputy Commissioner has considered
E
to the interested persons as :=.;’eq’ujrfé:d& ‘:7*:«:>_11
the contentions of the petitioner herein. She’ __e&te1a%_
observed to the effect that notices have_–I1ot.: isso,e<i= ,
129(2) of the Karnataka zmg m¢nu¢ ;;¢z,o..A;%:954; as
that the necessary parties pot" isapleaded.
The grounds refen*ed…¥:o__Ioy Commissioner
while passing the founded and
do not 7 V '
The ':*e;1ias:1éis;r,$ isoirected to hold a
fresh enq11irjy< contentions of the
petitioner _ and respondents before passing any
order. A V" V' '
devoid of merits is accordingly
. Sd/_
Judge
risk/–