Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2024 DAILYLAW 862 (KAR)

SRI THIPPERUDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/26530/2014 · 2026-07-27

R Nataraj

body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:30142 WP No.26530 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.26530 OF 2014 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. THIPPERUDRAPPA S/O BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. 2. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SIDDANAMATH VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 552. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.N. HATTI, ADV., [ABSENT]) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE 577 001. Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:30142 WP No.26530 of 2014 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE - 577 001. 4. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SIDDHANAMATH GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 552. 5. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O DODDAHANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SIDDHANAMATH GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 552. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH, ADV., FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DTD.17.6.2013 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-P. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.17.6.2013 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-P. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30142 WP No.26530 of 2014 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. None appears for the petitioners. 2. Even on the last date of occasion, none appeared for the petitioners. 3. This writ petition is of the year 2014. 4. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29