.{I3T SR1} ~I3A_ LAKRISIINA SHASTRY. ADV.)
E
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, I3A_I\I_C}ALQRI§: _
DATED THIS THE 1.9% DAY DIE' FESRuI£R'§I'._. "
PRESEfii __ . .M ., v__
THE I~IoN'I3LE MR. JIISTICERI
THE HONBLE MR. GOWDA
BETWEEN:-- '_f_'--
SR1. ALEX" NQRANHO,
S/O MICI--II«:_AII;--I\':QRE_:\IIIo';~ '-
AGEI)'ABO1J'}.'T 86
PAVOoR._'xILLA;:E_,"»I " -- .
DISTRICT D.K. ._ '
IF ANY BEI~I,EI«*ITS-.oI+iS'I3~:\IIoR
CITIzENS ARE._NO'I' CLAIMED
' I ;AI>PEI,LAI\IT
I. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
MAI\ICAI.0RE,
BY 'ITS CHAIRMAN.
" ' DIST. DK.
444$ g
STATE OF KARNATAKA.
REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY TO REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING.
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
3(a)
3[b}
3(0)
I»)
BANGALOREEBOOO I.
SMT.KP§LYAN1W/O. BABU POOJARY
SINCE DECDBY LRS
SAMPA POOJARY
D/O. SMT. KALYANI.
SMT VASANTHI
D/O. SMT. KALYANI
SRJLAXMAN ,
s/0. SMT. KALYANVI
ALLARE3/1AJ0R;s,
R/A.K1:;0cj3RU,
NAGUR1"'IiiO..UE3 " .j "
Pm/oQRj_vILLA<3E,'--.'i;< A
QISTRIC'F.E}.K.Ve _
Sm. Smwj F:.E3'xA' P' J
s/0. LAKE{AI'»_INP=. Rm,
4 ' MAJOR,'-BEL'MA BARIKE MANE.
TALEJKA MANGALORB3.
'' " ». _DI4ST_"D.AK;--.
"[BY*SRV1.P "éijIJ.'Sf§1N1vAs, AGA FOR R1 & 2
KESHAVA BHAT FOR R3[A--C)
P .. RA SERVED)
'\'«'JR_'I.PT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF' THE KARNATAKA HIGH
"COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
,V ___IN THE WRIT PETITION NO22316/O2 DATED" 26/02/2008.
This appeai is coming on for preiiminary hearing this
day. SREEDHAR RAO, J., delivered the following:
1 RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
The appellant filed an application in Form No.7 for
grant occupancy rights. However, in the said app}-ication
there was no application for grant of occupanioy”rijghtsi.-Vin_
respect of sy.No. 137 / 2A of Pavoor yillage, ‘1’a1u:k.”i.
The application for occupancy rights in of ‘the.ucA_lainds
mentioned in form No.7 was’ g_1janted.Vat the ;tin”;e._of surVle3r__””e.
The appellant realised the misétahe thatllhefihafd omitted the
sy.No.l37/2A in the ~«.{or_i”grant of it occupancy
righ.ts, authorities the appellant made
subrnissisohipon’i._2V?’:;.l’.l’9*8′:l”that he is an illiterate and by
mistaiie he xcoulld’ not ‘mention sy. No. 137/ 2A.
contention of the appellant that the landlord
ohjection for grant of occupation in respect of
s3’f:–l\io.v-13?,/ii2A in ‘favour of the appellant herein. The tribunal
..ac_cord’ingly granted occupancy rights. The respt. No.3 is a
it claimant. He challenged the order of grant in favour of
xthe appellant. herein in WP.No.l4407/89. This court set
aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh
consideration. The tribunal after remand heard the parties .
GE,
4
granted occupancy rights in favour of respt.No.3. The
appellant being aggrieved by the said order filed writ petition
in question.
The learned Single Judge has dismissed
the ground that the appellant ha.d~~r1ot
grant of occupancy rights in re’sgpe;e:t of
Form No.7. Therefore, grantllo1’~.Qccupancy. the T’
claim in Form No.7 is held The taken by the
learned Single Judgevi’s.so1.ind
” Shastry submitted that his
submissionlmade_be.fore_u..the survey authorities on 27.1.1981
S_h'(;’)l1l(Zl’b¢ colnstrvuedv as a claim for occupancy rights. The
‘ glltribunalpondconsideration of the said submission has validly
H ‘- rights. We do not agree with the
submisgsion made at the bar. The last date for submission of
T ” I~’ao4i1n”No.7 is 30.6.1979. The survey is made in the year
The submission for survey is made after the period of
” limitation. The said submission cannot be construed as a
request for amendment of application. In that view, we find
4/
5
that the order of the learned Singke Judge
proper. Accordingly, the appeai is dismisse_d.., _”_j V
‘– 1. fjj ” JUDGE