S.K.RAJAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(2.) The contention of the Petitioner is that respondent No.3 could not have vide order dated 18.03.2017 cancelled the revenue extracts in the name of the Petitioner and reverted to that of the name of respondent No.5 nor could the 2nd Respondent Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 09.07.2019 at Annexure-A confirm the same.

(3.) Shri B.K.Sampath Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that