Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2024 DAILYLAW 775 (KAR)

SRI. INTIYAZ PASHA @ BABU v. THE TAHASILDAR

WP/7092/2023 · 2026-06-01

M G S Kamal

body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:7402 WP No. 7092 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 7092 OF 2023 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN: SRI. INTIYAZ PASHA @ BABU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE ABDUL BASHEER SAB, RESIDING AT SONNASHETTYHALLI, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 13TH BLOCK, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 561 325. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHASILDAR CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 561 325. 2. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER SRINIVASPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 561 325. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO R/4-244/57-58, DATED 07.04.1958 FROM R-1 OFFICE AND DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER FOR REMOVAL OF TAMARIND FROM 36 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:7402 WP No. 7092 of 2023 TAMARIND TREES EXISTING ON 26TH AND 27TH KMS. 3/1 FURLONG STONE TO ONE MILE STONE I.E., 5 FURLONG TO BOTH SIDES 54 TAMARIND TREES TO EAST SIDE AND 36 TAMARIND TREES ON WEST SIDE OF KOLAR CHINTAMANI ROAD VIA SUGATURU TO CHINTAMANI FROM THE ROAD SIDE TREES EVERY YEAR AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This Court on 08.01.2024 granted time to comply with the office objections and had passed a peremptory order, which reads as follows: “Finally, two weeks time is granted to comply with the office objections, failing which, the matter would be dismissed for its non- prosecution.” Even today, the learned counsel for petitioner has not complied with the office objections. Therefore, writ petition is dismissed for its non-prosecution. Sd/- JUDGE HJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25