Karnataka High Court
Sri Bommegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
AVidh§im Eoudha'. ____ _.
IN THE HIGH COUFT' OF KARNETFJUX AT BENGAL" ' '
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY 09' MARCH 2098 :.--."Ej".: E A
BEFORE
-1-IE I-IQN'B,,EE MR. JUSTICE Ajnmr,
'"RI'i' PETITION NG.3f553f'2€}G8{;u_."' R+;R""'}
BETWEEN :
Sri.Bommegowda_,
Aged about 40 years,
S;o.SI'i.}.£u:1i:'.a:1i.;,g<.*.vda.V«». _
Kanakapm'aTe1u1;,'1-. _ ~ j
Ra1nanagareg'IJisir§¢t_, .. :1,
AND E
1. The' smi;-:-.c_s1' E
Byjta Revenue fiocrctéry,
iicészeniirz i.)epar-*u.:";m't,
' 560 001.
2; 1<evenue1*E:njs1:ecto ,
iliobii,
Taluk,
X Rm mgam" District. I ...RE8PONDEN'l'S
A {By Sri.B.V.Muralidhar, AGA)
This writ petition is filed under Amcxes ms and
E " V 2.2'? 9!' thus Qgnstjtution of India with a prayer to quash
Annexune E1 dated 8.1.2008 in Form No.37 as illegal.
This writ petition coming on tor
hearing. this day, the Court made the followingzw j 9- "
ORDER m»,A_ % %
An extent of 2 acres of land
\/.IIEIILIn3veuIJp -u---n
at ('how---=-==-r=...v-.=.-. \.'i.1L=.~.g,J,-;':,.J *1".-»r'_l1"Ag,
Ramanagara mstrict wag. Vfiottiae of the
petitioners some time the petitioner
and his anoeetofs. said land.
Suifice it tc :§Ch$c'f1ti;fegoWda, claimed that
his natzne 1" which in proceeomg" 5 ER
3A/88-89. t"A1r_tother A'apVj1iVication was filed in the year
'19aé§9oeebyc ohacdregcwda once again and katha was
name in MR. No.1_/1990-91. The
pe'*ti"n:'-:i:*~ " A-23""-'Li-'nc-d me said me..." to
"ooceeefiw.p.Nc.151oo/1991 before this court aeekm a
9 7:. ' to consider his application tor regularisation of
The writ petition was allowed on 29.08.1991.
9 9 The s.e.i.d. .....:_=-ea. _.gew«:_1e mterrcnng with the ,,
I__.o--"'7
_/ u I
...-__.._.._S-.._ ;
PUSSUB
I-
U-II
=P
I-I
. I-ie-nee, a poiiee eomp'=:_fint
was lodged. Bufliee it to say that the Revenue
of Kodihalli Hobli was appointed as a
lands for harvesting the g1ound;nfit" 'V
groundnut crop and the "hidder=
of Rs. 13,300/-. V V V
:2. it appears__ to suit in 0.3.
No.276/20Q--1i~ order on the
appficeflon_A""I,A.I§oA, Trial Judge has
directed the Tatnaartaacpostt a sum of Rs. 18_,3oo_/--,
an 'neafit-I i-Ilsa" ""'HNnnnn Dliwnnunn-f fin I-I-an -ah-I
nsuvtn wqa - M. 1.45.! I.-.I.!._w figuuvlxhxo L l.I.I.s:H.IaII.I.J.I. uu ulu unuu
. ord_ei; notieeee1*e.,iseued caliing upon the petitioner to
depostt amount. A copy of the said notices is at
end 'E1'. Pursuant to the said notices,
'vthe has sent a reply by registered post, a copy
~. ".-ml'
.' '-1;
3104 than-\.4-Iusagasol 4-uI- Ac-no-ngncrscuug 'fl' 'I"Ir-u4- amalgam-anon-an on-I-'
WIJJDII JD JIJLIIJDUIL L IILIIIGAILIKS \J c 11113 W -I III
the petitioner is that the said reply is not as yet
u considered. However, the Revenue Inspector has
proceeded to realise the amount.
e"
3. Having remrd to the facts stated above and
since a reply is sent by registered post, the "
d;i.rectet1 to tile :1 reply to the said notice -- _
Inspector --- res"-wndent Ho." am'
the same shall' " be considered __in ' if
having regard to the contents
Petition stands
The reply to *E,1"i?1otlces shall be _
n--us'. ' "I'1\4l1'lIl
4''n..... 4 .. ..
Ur;-gm nufil uruuy.
The the same in
accorda::;ce._ V V _ ' 4 1" - .... ._ -- l
4. learned Additional
3 V' "appearing lion' the respondents is
'memo of appearance within four weeks. Sd_/9..
Judge Si