Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Chikkanna And Others vs State Of Karnataka Department Of And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|22 February, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NOs.9343 - 9352 OF 2016 (KLR - REG) BETWEEN:
1. CHIKKANNA S/O DODDARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS MUTHARAYANAHALLI R/AT SUDDEKUNTE POST KODEGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101 2. NARAYANAPPA S/O CHIKKAHANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS MUTHARAYANAHALLI SINGENAHALLI POST KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101 3. MALERANGAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS MUTHARAYANAHALLI SINGENAHALLI POST KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101 4. RANGAPPA S/O BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS MUTHARAYANAHALLI SINGENAHALLI POST KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101 5. CHIKKANNA S/O CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS MUTHARAYANAHALLI SINGENAHALLI POST KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101 6. MALERANGAPPA S/O JUALAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS MUTHARAYANAHALLI SINGENAHALLI POST KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101 7. SRIRANGAPPA S/O DANADARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS MUTHARAYANAHALLI R/AT SUDDEKUNTE POST KODEGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101 8. NIRMALA W/O HULIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS MUTHARAYANAHALLI SINGENAHALLI POST KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101 9. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MUDDARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS MUTHARAYANAHALLI SINGENAHALLI POST KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101 10. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O CHIKKAHANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS MUTHARAYANAHALLI SINGENAHALLI POST KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.K.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDINGS VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU – 572 101 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION MADHUGIRI – 572 132 4. THE TAHSILDAR MADHUGIRI TALUK MADHUGIRI – 572 132 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, HCGP) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION AS FOR ANNEXURE – B, B1, B2 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR REGULARIZATION OF THEIR CULTIVATION TO THE EXTENT OF 3 ACRES IN SY.NO.177 OF ADVINAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KODIGENAHALLY HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, EXPEDIOUSLY AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The plea of the petitioners is that their application for regularization has not been considered by the authorities. Learned Government Advocate submits that so far petitioner Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, and 9 are concerned, the applications of these petitioners are pending consideration. However there is no material to indicate that the other petitioners have also sought for regularization. It is contended that if at all there is any proof of the other petitioners having filed such applications, those applications also will be considered along with the applications of petitioner Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 9. The submission is placed on record. Petition is disposed off with the said undertaking.
SD/- JUDGE ykl
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Chikkanna And Others vs State Of Karnataka Department Of And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
22 February, 2017
Judges
  • Ravi Malimath