Loading...

Sri.R.Subramanya vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri.R.Subramanya vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2009
Author: H N Das
1

1 VN-'.P.33(}4:iw48f()')

IN THE FHGH COURT OF KABNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 15?" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTECE H.N.NAGAMOHA.é*é--»!:5_j1"§SV"-11: ._

WRJT PETITION NO:33o44~A8/zébogfiLTB;5;E§j'._'  "   'V, E Oi'

BETWEEN:

SRJRSUBRAMANYA   
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAHM " - '

AGED 52 YEARS,   _    O 
BEHJND SRi CHENNAKESI1AVARASV§.fAf\.43~'. TEMPLE
BELUR TOWN, H.ASSAN~Di.ST- ' W 

SR:.Em;AAEAL'L,a'kAE;;J~LJN*O O 
S/O [;ATE RA'?JEAKR"I.SH~NA~:AH. ;

AOED~.40'--YEARs,.j-»._ _  _
BEHJND SPACHANNKESH/WARASWAMY TEMPLE,
BELUR TO.wN HASSANDTST.

sRi%f_AET'.R.AJAsETEa<HAR .

 srO"LATE PAMAKRISHNAIAH
. 'AGED_v4?.'{EARS,

 _ "BE'f--':i.NE._SR§" OHANNT<EsHAvARAswAAAY TEMPLE,
" _BE_LUFi'"F'QWN;',"HASSAN DiST.

sNzT.O.EEETN'A
W/O T.AT§_E RAJASHEKHAR

 .AGED'4D YEARS,

O VBVE'%-HND SR! CHANNKESHAVARASWAMY TEMPLE,

 --..E3*ELE.ER TOWN, HASSAN DIST.

a"'»M



(By Sri.N R NAII4"  ,5)

2 \'v'.§'.33{H4--iS/{)9

SRI.B.R.SUBHASH
SIO LATE DRRAMACHANDFRA
AGED 40 YEARS,

BEHIND SR: CHANNKESHAVARASWAMY TEMPLE" I ;...: Cf' .»_. A 

BELUR TOWN, HASSAN DIST. "

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY   «
REVENUE DEPARTMENT _ 
M.S.BUIL.DINOS  
BANGALORE  

THE DEPUTY':CCiMM:S:SION'ER_éé§ CR'A.'IRIvfAN
FOR DISTRfCT..TO'U'BISM}-DE'\!E'LO'i?JVIE'NT
COMMITTEE, 'i.'..-_!/{S SAN DIS1', RASSAN

THE A.SS':S'TAN'T'OOMMISTS'IO_N ER
SAKALESRPU RA SUB D':---\/_iS«fO%\i,

SAKALESHP"U.RA'

TA.l§}ISJL'DARg S'"E-LUR  HASSAN DIST.

A  TIELCIJNICVAL DFRECTOR
_ "'DEPART_r\/i»E'N,_T 'OI: LAND SURVEY
" ._AN__D. SET"ILE£\¥/f'ENT, BELUR TQ_,

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOURISM DEPARTMENT

 _RASSA.N DIST.

"  IT-IAECHIEP OFFECER
 'TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
 .. _ BELUR, HASSAN DIST.

4

'M'

     



3 \V'.?'__'C{)~H--4?_Ar~'

R/A MARLE HOSAKOTE VILLAGE, ' '
AMBLE HOBLI, ' _ 
CHIGKMAGALUR TQ, '
CHICKMAGALUR DFST.     

  "  je ,.;-RESRONDENTS

(By srI.R.DEvDASS, AGA FOR RI 'TO;Re"&   
R8 & R9)   _    'V

THESE wRITi.PETITIONS'-ARE"FILED LINDER ARTFCLES
225 & 227.TI»IE [email protected]"T.I.T'UTION'vOF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH AND SET_--AS_1DGEV'THE,NQTlCE DT. 3.11.2009 ISSUED BY
THE R4 \/IDE A'NX~.'\/1 AND 'I=AsI4RETGH'ER PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
AGAINST THESE"F?ET%TfO--NER8____  

THESE WRTT._RETi.TlO'I\iSzOOMlNG ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAV, THRCOURT MAeE_T_RE FOLLOWFNG;

ORDER

Ski”:-R.D«e\io’a’ss., AGA és directed to take notice for Respondent

it it to 6 and-‘Respondent Nos.8 & 9.

H in these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a

‘ virrit iriuthe rzatuzre of certiorari to quash the notice dated 03.31.2009

4 \¥\l}I,§1%{);$4i%!5f(){}

Annexure «M ‘M’ issued by the office of 4″‘ Respondent,/Tahsiidar

directing the petitioners to be present for conducting H

properties beionging to Beiur Sri.Chennakeshavaswamy.’:fTempie’in= —

Sy.No.216/1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and gramathanaSy’.f’J–o:59–‘t2A_tV2:Biiv

3. No prejudice wiii ee”ieeu.e_ed to the .Vp’e:itre.ee~r’ew by
issuing the impugned notice. find no__§uis’ivi.fi_a’b.§_e ground. to jriterfere

with the impugned notice.

4. Accord i.n.g:i.y,’:- their: writ’ _:’..pet«i.tion’$~. uaregf’ hereby rejected
without referenceyto .1eQ’LfiV_ V

5. permitted to file memo of

appearance for to 5 and Respondent Nos.8 & 9

within irveeks rre’mv1re-;s_ey._

set/–

JUDGE

dhf’ ”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information