Karnataka High Court
Ruksana Parveen vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Principal ... on 17 April, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
3V..V'«S'm£§l:1dI*a1ii; 1;
. 004.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE :71?! DAY OF APRIL, . V %
.§i;.I_-".«:_:«'__<;>__I.=,'....§ %
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'PICE_'. ~ = V' R
WRIT PETITXON NO.115_2_6 O§'2006{;_L_A;-_RESI'_: S
BETWEEN :
1. Ruksana Paxveen,. 3 _ '
E)/0 Nazecr 4'
Agcd about45"yean:,...';'-- ' j »
R/at Barline, "T_uIa:1_k.ar-57 '_
2. M.S.Usha Rani,' "
W/0 Submmanya "
Aged about 3-'ca;tVs, =
R/a K.R_.Extcfi3ic$n, v_
'rum1;;;r4572 102,
~
Agéd. about ¢¥$j_ yéasus,
. . . . PETFPIONERS
(BY Sri.P.N.NANJA REDDY &
Sri S.C.BHU'I'i, ADVOCATES)
as
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
To Revenue Depmtnnent,
M.S.Building,
Baxcxgalore-560 00 1.
2. State Government Houseless *
Haxtijan Employees Association {_Regd.}' _
Represented by its ' _ '
Shanthinagar, Tumkur-572_10-2. V ._ V "
_f g ..4."«..V*»REsmrJDENTs
(av ;é;K,HaI4;.:1,";»1c<:4P;l£o:,R- 1 &
A_dvocaie,V fin" R-2)
This Writ 4Petitio'1't2 j:i:s_ under Article 226 at' the
Constitution of _II1dia," -to quash the endorsement
dated Nil~0_1--200¢5~ {Anne':n1rc_:~Kj" issued by the R. 1 and direct
the R.l togjgive. eflect to and implement the order/decision of
._VRevt:ini1e; 27.2.2004 vide Annexure-E by
saxaze in the Gazette Notification in respect of
the._1a.nad 1.b¢a;ing4vt.sy.iNo.49/1 (now phoded as Sy.No.49/3)
.a<:1i":aof Maralur Viilage, 'I'um.k'ur Taluk,
conseqaxent up"<f;n,* quashing the endorsement dated
-_~.~A_1mexme-K and grant all the oansequential
reliefs anti etc, V
?etit32on coming on for pxeljzninaxy hearing in
"B.'jjGzi:--~up;. having been heart! and reserved for ozdezfs, this
' vflay the Court pronounced the following:-
{Ate
0m)ER
The petitioners seeks for a writ of certiorari to
Endorsement issued in January 2006 by the 1*' *
Annexure-K and for a writ of 1na11damus_ RV'
respondent to five cifect to and i1}:).p1Ci;'I'1CI,i._:f'~'E:'hE:""~OIA'vC1,<(}'I
Revenue Minister dated 27502-2004' 4 p€ti'£Ii0I1CI'S have also sought for a writ that the Notification issued underscéagx; 16(2) Land Acquisition Act vide Annexure-J is _ " and for other consequential
2. couI1$$é'i'.'fo:1*'d 1_;1§e.:::*p2titii)uer Sri P.N.Nanja Raddy, addressed the arguments advanced by the tea» the pefitioner in Writ Petition ' g the order dated 17.4.2008 passed in Writ AP-stifigzti "b¥§3«.S§8Sf?,?'2006 this Petition is disposed 05 on the Same terms.
" " "bio ordé:__as to costs. Sd/.
-T.udg'"'§