IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 35579/2011 (KLR – RES) AND WRIT PETITION Nos.11901-11902/2012 BETWEEN :
1. TEKRANAYAKA, S/O LACHMANYKA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 2. HALESHNAYKA, S/O TAKRANAYKA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST 3. KEERYANAYKA, S/O KANYANAYKA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST ALL ARE THE RESIDENTS OF PUNABAGHATTA – TANDA – VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI – TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADV.) AND:
1. LAMBANI DAKANANAYKA, S/O JAGANANAYKA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, HARAPANAHLLI – TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HARAPANAHALLI SUB – DIVISION, HARAPANAHALLI.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE. …RESP0NDENTS (BY SRI. T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R2 & R3; SRI.N.M.SHIVANAGOUDAR, ADV., FOR R1) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT 3 IN RA 41/06-07 DATED 24.12.07 CONSEQUENTLY BY SETTING THE ORDER IN PASSED IN RA 41/06-07 DATED 18.10.06 PASSED IN MR 26/00-01 DATED 15.09.2000 PASSED BY THE THASILDAR HARAPANAHALLI VIDE ANNEXURE – C AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER These writ petitions are filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the respondent No.3 in RA 41/2006-07 dated 24.12.2007, which is Annexure-‘C’, and also for setting aside the order passed by respondent No.2 in RA 80/2004-05 dated 18.10.2006 in confirmation of order passed in MR 26/2000-01 dated 23.09.2000.
2. When this writ petition has come up for hearing before this court on 20.04.2012, a direction was issued to the petitioners to produce the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.143/1975 and also in O.S.No.178/1977 in order to verify the contentions raised in the present writ petitions. Though this order is passed admittedly about seven years ago, till today, the same has not been complied.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner seeks further time for compliance of the order dated 20.04.2012.
4. This court is of the considered opinion that no grounds are made out to consider the prayer. Accordingly these writ petitions are dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 20.04.2012.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-