Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8155 (KAR)

SHANKRAPPA S/O. NANAPPA LAMANI, v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

WP/65816/2011 · 2025-04-24

M G Uma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6818 WP No. 65816 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.65816 OF 2011 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SHANKRAPPA S/O. NANAPPA LAMANI, AGE: ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TADAS, TQ: SHIGGANOV, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI PAVAN.M.N, ADV. - ABSENT) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DIST: HAVERI. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, SHIGGAON, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.11.1996 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6818 WP No. 65816 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. No representation, even when the matter was passed over thrice and again called at 2:43 p.m. 2. Order sheet dated 23.04.2025 reads as under: “Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. No representation. The order sheet dated 01.04.2025 reads as under: “Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. No representation. The writ petition is of the year 2011. It appears that, the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. However, to afford final opportunity, list this matter on 23.04.2025.” In spite of that, there is no representation. I do not find any reason to adjourn the matter. However, to afford one more opportunity, list this matter on 24.04.2025.” 3. In spite of that there is no representation on behalf of petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for default i.e., for non-prosecution. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1