Sri Shivappa vs The Deputy Commissioner … on 22 October, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22% DAY OE OCTOBER, A. V

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR. JUsT1cE;v;GQPA'EA'_ViG'c§w5A 

THE HONBLE MRS. JIfS'1°I.§3E B'.'v.NA..QARATHTJA

WRIT APPEAL No.42/2oo9_{KLE~RE§1  7

BETWEEN:

1 SHIVAP:PAA}b'_V _ .    A """ "
    

s/0 MALLEPPT.'   ~  
R./'AT«.SANK13EPURA'-VILLAGE,
MALEBVENNUR HO_BLl,-  TQ,
DAVANAGERE D1S'TRI--CT.

2 NINC}A_I_5PA, _  '
;AGED ABQUT so YRS

 /Q A

 A  BOTH ARE R/AT SANKLIPURA VILLAGE
A  A . MALEBTENNUR HOBLI
'  rLARITLA_PA~~TQ DAVANAGERE DIST

 APPELLANTS

~  "(Byj sn': TMLANUMANTHAPPA H, ADV. FOR M/S
 4' .;M1j1'HRA ASSTS)

   ~

n
.' _............._.........._._

1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

\[



'6; .  .

 

DAVANAGERE

THE TAHASILDAR
I-IARIHARA TQ
DAVANAGERE DIST

G M NINGAPPA V .
S/O LATE MALLAPPA R
AGED ABOUT 57 YRS"»_ 
R/AT SANKLIPURA VILLA'G_E~»..

MALEBENNUR, 1'£~I~QBL.f:' TQ  

DAVANAGERE DIST 
MALLAPPA   

s/0     A 
AGED4..A_BG1ijfrj  ..  A
R/AT' sANz:L1PURA'A'j?.f1ALLAG;?; "

 HCBLI' HARi'HARA TQ
DAVANAGERE Déli-3Z1'   A

  
s/0-G MvNIi\I_fGAPPA'A~
AGED"ABOI,I'F 25 YRS

3 _;R/AT sAM<:_L1pURA VILLAGE
= *    ~ Iv1ALEB.ENNUR"HOBLI HARIHARA TQ
~. A QAVANAGERE DIST



S/O BASAPPA

"AGED 'ABOUT 52 YRS gz

R/A1' SANKLIPURA VILLAGE

. , _I\/IAVLEBENN UR HOBLI HARIHARA TQ
 DAVANAGERE DIST

RATHNAMMA

A W/O RAMANA GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 47 YRS

R/AT SAN KLIPURA VILLAGE
MALEBENN UR HOBLI HARIHARA TQ
DAVANAGERE DIST

\/



 

8 'WSHALAKSHMAMMA
W/O RAMANA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YRS
R/AT SANKLIPURA VILLAGE

MALEBENNUR HOBLIHARIHARA TQ-._:    
DAVANAGERE DIST  s "  I = 
9 NAGAPPA

s/0 NINGAPPA I
AGED ABOUT 37 YRS-i.__ 

R/AT SANKLIPURA Vi-LILAGE I.'   
MALEBENNUR HOBLI  TQ ii
DAVANAGEREIDIST  --    

10 SHIVAPPA     
s/0 NINGAPPA, '. 
AGED ABOUT :32 e   I 
R/AT SAIIITLIPLIRII VILLAGE'; 
MALEBENNIZJR H I. BLI  TQ

DAV;AIN--A(}_ERE?' DIST '. j  I

... RESPONDENTS

   WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

HIGH i..j{fIO'URT ACT PRAYING To SET ASIDE THE
 .ORDERIJ?AS'SED IN THE WRIT PETITION 13510/2007
  DgIT'eog«:;5,/ 1}-1.[.2008

  "Repeal coming on for orders this day, Gopala

  V"~C}owdoI=J.', delivered the follovvingz

 

JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant is absent. Office

objection is not complied with despite granting time.

\\I/

2. We have perused the order impugned” Ve’i:r;i’e._this

appeal and the material on record. We
reason to interfere with the order
judge. Hence, the appeal is dis;rpiss.edfjv it t’ t

3* JUDGE

ariy.

cf the–learneci rsingiea