5e1o txe iflP?. UtO aiof’uj PTSL e4J UEAEW TLSflJ>t ..gqif) oTefSui ‘IEUOTSSTUIUIOD k ndaca i ej. pu (Ap ‘OEj T2T eSLT1 A) 96/IO9ION dM u i3uoTTed itti qtos atop6u iyqo ue). ‘e6ETTTA 1pusef /1 •si’eA 99 P 6 ftipr o/M ‘Ewmfld4WE 96/OO8I 0W d’M UT tr[j UflOE eJoT5uEE TTQcJ1-i T1eöue ‘e5eTTTA /1 Cs peE pio6e6ur 0/s •1 966I/IO9OO9ISON NOI3IJ2c LI1M ALJ3HS VhLV HsiA’d 5DLLSf&èiW 2ThLck iisJ, 9661 2NflL o AVG H9 SIHJ. G2LVa OTtDNVEI LV Q JflOD HfIH HJ NI 3. The tate of Karnataka, flpartnent of Revenue, Rep. by its secretary, Vidhana sosd1n, aangalore—i. Reondents. (fly sri. Kotian, \dd1.Gk., k ** * * This P is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of tue Constitution of India praying to quash vide nex.N at.9—1—98 by R1 etc., This coming on for prly. hg. this day, the Court me the following: ORDER in theetitfons, the petItioners have challenged the corre tress of th order lated 9th Jant ry, 1998, a ccpy of which has been produr ed as Anne xure—’4, on several grounds. 2, How v r, si e, I gin o t’gi vi w that tha order irugred i liable to be nash d o tbe ground that tIe order Anuexu’N came to be passed without hearing the petitioners and witbe out givIng an opportunity to the petitioners, I fid it unreesza’ to consider the other groinds urgd by the leamel counsel for the etitioners, It is thecase f the p ti tone that the petiti ners were not heard and an oooortuni was nOt given to the netitioners to nut—forward their say before passing the order Annexure—N, Since the order Annexure—N seriously affects the prope ty rights of the 1%4 petitIoners, I am of the view the order Annexurew passed without hearIng the peti tioners is totally illegal as the same came to be passed in disregard of princinles of natural jistice, Accordingly 0 the order AnnenreN so far an the etitionrs are cone rr in h ehy quasned, The matter irremitted for frosh consi :eratlon to the 1st respondent, TheIst respondent shall pass fresh orders after gi;ing an o rtunity to the petitio ers and all other ah are inretested in the lends in que t on, n a o dan e with law, -h peti— tiners are thrected to aptear before the 1st —4— respondRnt for the purpose of fresh enquiry on ul 1998, However, it is tade clear that the petitioners are not entitl°d fo any further notice from the 1st resoondent, The conduct 1st respondent shi1 $zn fresh enquiry and pass fresh orders witlin three months from 20th July, 1998, 3, Accordingly, these petition” are allowed and disposed of, Rule is issued and made absoute, 4, Sri Kotien, learned Government Advocate is given four weeks time to file his memo of appearancee juDGE - ia