IN 'l'I~iE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BAN DATED Ti-11S THE 25TH DAY OF NO\fE'M_I3E}5§!f_,j BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUs*r1:;E ' 7 WRIT PE'1'I'1'ION NDV.»1.5E§9*i36 di«'.2u:14r-;,1§a§réEsi BE'T'WEEN : R/AT.' ?m;LAGE, Vv*'NAzmjAGU?1;3i HQBLI, H(}SK(3f3'E_'i';AL£.fK;.__ % V'BANGAL0I§E_'DI_STRICT. L "SHIv1Aiv1§&=A"'*' V w/0 C SHANJANAPPA .....
3
RfAT«–.CHIKKONiZ)AHALLI VILLAGE,
. :V’Ng§N’BAL’3UDI HOBLI,
“Hr;>.:31a:<;::*1'13: TALUK,
BANQALQRE DISTRICT.
” ,V$fi.RAMAPPA
* s/0 LA’1′}’:”: SOMANNA,
60 YEARS,
R / AT CHIKKONDAHALLI \/ELLAGE,
NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
\9A~
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODBABALLAPUR SU’B–DIViSION,
PODIUM BLOCK,\’ISHVESWARAL’§I¥£ -1′
TOWER, Dr. AMBEIDKAR VEE13§HI,’
BANGALORE 1.
THE CHIEF SECRE’I’ARY”»
ZILLA PARISHAD,
BANGALORE RURAL 1:>:sT.’, _ _
BANGALORE. ~ A ; %
THE SECR§33TARY'”””‘f I *
SAMANYA §f1THAI *<":;z;A’m HANUMAPPA
68 YEARS,
A “‘«4R/Ail” GHIKKONDAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANEDAGUDI HOBLI,
_ __f~£O’SKO’I’E TALUK,
*7 :viuN1YAMMA
W] O LATE HANUMAPPA
58 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKONDAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
HGSKOTE TALUK,
NANJUNDAPPA
S/0 LATE VENKATESHAPPA t
53 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKONDAHALLI . 2 ”
N AN DAGUDI HOBLI, » ‘ -..__
HOSKOTE TALUK. ~
CANJANAPPA –
:3/0 LATE (3fiANNA.i?1?A_ , ‘
53 YEARS, T % J
R/AT CH];KKON’DA HALLI
NANI)A.GU_I2_’I
HOSK'(§§’TE’;j’i'[_a1,U:K.’:-_V g
MA1MV¥gNE%:EE;,,V H _ ~
LATE 23212353 %
R_–.fA’Z.’ c§1n<1I”HGB:.’1,
A HOS1{C{1″i3.f1″ALU’K’;’
” % Mi VT’§3Ni?{i’i’I’A_i§i1Kd!i’V
:);’r.J.D’0DDANARAYANAPPA
RfA’_?._CHIKKON’DAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
H’QSKO’1’E TALUK.
LAKSHMAMMA
2 W/() CHIKKANARAYANAPPA
58 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKONDAI-IALLI WLLAGE,
19%’
Court by the order dated 9~1-‘.2001 set aside the said
order and remanded the matter back to
respondent. The said order was passed
fact that the orders on Ine1*its….were ; ‘
authority therein Without consi:ieI:i_figTV the .
delay. After remand, msponoent the*
impugned order on merits. VAA” éeiied by said order,
the present petition is’ ‘f”1lte<:L * . _ 2 .
2. Sri G; A. Srikante:eVGow;1_a,'”‘1e§gt3iried counsel for
the fiofivithstanding the
meritsof same is liable to be
set asfigie of the order passed
by the on 9~1~2oo1 in Writ Petition
No.f2fi}9G.I to 1992. He subnclits that there was 59.
by the learned Single Judge to the
aoifrority to consider the question of delay
-V hefo 1’e””Veni’biarldng “upfln hearing the petitioners on
%”L«-~–
Therefore to upset or reverse the rights
conferred on the mtitioners, an applioatiofi
condonation of delay would be
consideration of the case on H’1»eI’i1;s. j.’f’he’:4,respo11c_1er;ts
having failed to consider t;ht:__queS?joi1 of L.
in entertaimn’ g the apmal not corngolyringivfgwith the
order passed by would render
his order liabloto be ‘V V
5. For ~ I pass the following
orderi-
1). Tile” ~ order passed by the 15*
12-3-2004 vide Annexure-L in case
No}Vi9C i%2;o2oo1(-02 is hereby quashed.
V’ ” The matter is remitted back to the 1″
— ‘A’11;’S’sj5o1}dent to consider the application for condonation
W/<-~–r
.. 19 _
of delay and with objections by the petitioners. Oniy
thereafter and if found necessary the authority
proceed to hear the matter on merits and ~
rsk