The Commissioner vs Mahalingappa S/O Chikkappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2796 Kant

                          1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                      BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD

           REVIEW PETITION NO.100060/2018


BETWEEN


THE COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
CAVERY BHAVAN,
BENGLAURU-560009,
REPRESENTED BY THE
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
HAVERI DIVISION,
HAVERI.

                                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SMT. SHARMILA M .PATIL, ADV.)

AND

1.     MAHALINGAPPA S/O CHIKKAPPA MULAKERI
       AGE: 58 YEARS,
       OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O: VIRAKTAMATHADA ONI,
       SHIGGAON-580110,
       TQ: SHIGGAON,
       DIST: HAVERI.

2.     SHIVALINGAPPA S/O CHIKKAPPA MULAKERI
       AGE: 56 YEARS,
       OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                         2




     R/O: VIRAKTAMATHADA ONI,
     SHIGGAON,
     TQ: SHIGGAON-580110,
     DIST: HAVERI.

3.   SHANKARAPPA
     S/O CHIKKAPPA MULAKERI
     AGE: 51 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: VIRAKTAMATHADA ONI,
     SHIGGAON-580110,
     TQ: SHIGGAON,
     DIST: HAVERI.

4.   MAHADEVAPPA
     S/O CHIKKAPPA MULAKERI
     AGE: 48 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: VIRAKTAMATHADA ONI,
     SHIGGAON-580110,
     TQ: SHIGGAON,
     DIST: HAVERI.

5.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
     HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT.,
     VIDHANA SOUDHA,
     BENGLAURU-560001.

                                  ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2017 AND
RESTORE THE WRIT PETITION NO.110276/2015 (LA-KHB)
ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                             3




                         ORDER

None appears for the petitioner.

This Court has issued notice to the respondents in

the month of November 2019 but requisites have not

been furnished for issuance of notice to the respondents

in all these years.

It is obvious from the above that the concerned is

not interested in prosecuting the petition and therefore,

the petition stands rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE Rsh