HARIJAN ERANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) In these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the order dtd. 3/7/2017 passed by the 3rd respondent herein (Annexure-G to writ petitions).

(3.) Sri. Santosh Mane, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned order dtd. 3/7/2017 passed by the 3rd respondent under Sec. 108K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 read with Sec. 25 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the provisions contemplated under Rule 108K of the aforementioned Rules is not applicable to the factual aspects on record.