High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Shivalingaiah vs Sri Gurulingaiah on 7 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivalingaiah vs Sri Gurulingaiah on 7 July, 2008
Author: Deepak Verma A.S.Bopanna


us: THE men Comm 0;? KARNA’I”AKA AT B;;.1\I< 3 A;c;:§é;r=,LL.M T'

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY cf? :3o0i§s- * "

PRESENT % A V
THE HONBLE MR. DEEPAK
THE HGPPBLE

WRIT PE3:m «:;3~z NC§.82§33/:2(5(§§S'~iKLRf4I§ES-PIL)

BETWEEN" ; H

1

SRISH1_VAiJNC:AlAI~i

s/0 I$;’I’~E BAsAVA1:;xH,_

man ABOUT’ ‘-%£’YEPxRS
.3/AT~HALL1KsaRE VILLAGE,
__K..BE_LmR P0 _____ ..

‘A ‘ a , KASABAHQBLI, MADDUR ‘1’Q.,

_h£AN§}Y’A”D§S’!.’.RiCT.

1 SR] Boramy

“-53./,_ v:;..e’>.-3%’ BOREGOWBA
AGED’ ABOUT 50 YEARS

R/AT HALLIKERE VILLAGE,

” =».K.BELLI}R POST,

._ KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR ‘I’Q.,
” mmava DISTRICT.

STI T LINGAIAH
8/ O LATE TAGHDEGOWDA @ SGDDAIDEGOWDA,
R/A’? HALLIKERE VILLAGE,
1%?)

K.BELLL¥R POST,
KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR “l’Q.,
MANDYA DISTRICT.

SR1 BOREGOWDA

8/ Q SIQDALINGAIAH

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

R’/A’? HALLIKERE VILLAGE,
KBELLUR POST,

KASABA HOBLI, MADDUI-2 ‘i’Q.,
MANDYA DISTRICT. ”

SR1 SHIVAMAM DAIAH

s/0 LAT’E H_13KU’N£1EGOT#IAEb’A.
AGED ABQUT #5 YEARS;”– ~ A
R /93′ HA; ,LI;-xER’E: VILLAGE, ”
K.I::::ELi.UR’P:;>ST1f.”«.% . ;
l<.AS£sBA I-i0BL:._.j MADVDUR '!'Q.,
MANDYA' D1s*:*.R1c:.tr;.

PETYFIGNERS

" ' {By Hf LEEI.AI§Ht'x¥2; ADV.)

"-SR: GURGHNGMAH

s;.Q'LINGA1AH
MAJGR IN AGE

I ' AT HALLIKERE VILLAGE,
r _ KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TQ.,
'MANDYA DISTRICT.

ASST. COMMISSIONER
MANDYA SUB DIVISION,
MANDYA.

L.\)

3 DEPUTY COMM§SSlONER’
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA. :

4 TAHSILDAR
MADDUR TALUK, V
MANDYA DIS’1’R1C’1′. V * _

RESPCJNDENTS

(By Sri : MB, PRABHAKARv,”A(_&A F01? R.;fj2jT§:’;-4_)
THIS wan’ PETITION 14$JF?i’LEi?.!i}1§¥D1§!é £a!§TiCLES 225 AND

22? OF THE r::;.£.3Ix’s’1’f1fI’iJ’1*:t:>tsIT’~rL_;:~’ii lfibm, WYFH A PRAYER TO;
QUASH Ti-IE _ 939352 PASSED “BY…v’R3 mt 1.9.2006 m RA
NCL6/200:6 F:LE*12Im’ Tm: 519.531′ RESPONDENP HERESN UNDER’
ANNEX.G.’r. . ‘ –

This for Pmixm 33′ xaxy }1eann’ g this
day, DEBPAK Ag.C’J., made the following :

._Q.BQ§.|3

munsel for the petitioners on

the records.

z the matter ibr quite some time, the

” for the pctiizionem aought leave to wtithdraw

E

this Public Intelest Litigation m as to enable the pefifioners

to move an appropriate application before the

Commis$io:ne1*, Mandya, before whom the 1natteI7″”‘ie _._ A’

pending after it has been remanded by Z

Commissioner with a direction {:0 <::t§n3i§:_1:e:r;it« J

hearing all interested persons.

3. In this View of the 12_:ie’L’i’:Q1_;q’;-‘,:4=;jA=.c,*e:*VeL’g;«t*sa11.t Eéve to the

petiticmexfs” “.+;c- »§j;th:ii5s;;es~ ‘mfg wi’iii”‘1§e1jti¢313 with liberty to
app1*oach f¢he ._ASaieté§ixt: ‘C?4fLaV-i£1ze:i’§+3.s..icrne1*, Mamiya, where the

matter is Vaftefvreuiand made by the Deputy

Mandy…-me his onier dated 19.9.2006. On

moved by the petitirmers, the same

majrbeé by the Assistant Commissioner, Mazfiya,

law and on merits. If another applieatian

stay is also moved by the peiitieners herein, the

shall be considered by the autimority in

” with law and on Ineltita. Ali contentions urged in

75

this petition are left open to be urged before the ~ 3

Commissioner, Maictdya.

With the afona-,sa1d’ ¢:>’1)*.3ervatio11s.;»Vthi3

dismisscd as Withdrawn.

 ....    Chief Justice
     Sd/-5