High Court Karnataka High Court

Tammanagouda vs State Of Karnataka By Revenue … on 18 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Tammanagouda vs State Of Karnataka By Revenue … on 18 June, 2008
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
-1-

IN THE HIGH courrr or-' KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 13*" an or  A "  

BEFORE  i 

THE HON'BLE MR.Jus13:cE. ggxoi-MN 5HAas1*raé~aA¢%s.a:{2f %

 

Between:

1. Thammanagcziida  H
S10 Basanagoégda --_ .
shirayappageudar % .;   »  
Aged about   '

2. Shs;nka1$igrfmda7';V ' _ 
S/o...Basanagoud_a* _  .,
Shirayappa  ..   
Aged abqut 3L'yea;-s. V 

 3. ,I~;s&hWa1ago1idaV
'  __ - Si oz/,,9Q%gnagouéa--*' "
.  .,Si:i_rays.ppav Goudar
 _a¥3du_t_ 30 ycars

' '  Konnur
"Nargund* Taluk. . . Petitioners

   (By Sri'Jayak11mar 3. Patil Associates, Adv.,}

    The State of Kanlataka

By the Ravenue Commissioner
" Ba:ngalorc--5-SI} 001.



2. The Land Tribunal
Nargund, by its Chairman
Nargund Taluk
Dhaxwad District.

3. Sir Desai of Navalguad
Shiraaangi Trust Committee
By its Prctsitient -- The Deputy   
Commissioner, Belgaum District 
Belgaum. 

4. Ganganagouda 
Mallanagoudar L» ._ " »
Since dead by his LR$,,

(a) Neelamma --
W/o Ganganagouda
Mallanagoutiar V 
Aged aboyiii 'f5.1 _'37ca1"_s 1; ..

R/a ~ 7 2  
Naxg-um, _s.'}adé§=.Di§vfl';i¢t~   '

(b) Nagénagnuda  J . " .
vS[o Gafigganagouéa 
.»?1Maii°*flag0fid3T .
~ Agicd: about 3'2 

'A  i~"Z[a.B.::lIr:riTaluk

V V' 'V District.

'(:2)' Dakshseyini
 Wffo Saflanmxda Kuiakanii
Agcti about 36 years
A.  R/'a Sembra Taluk
ficlgaum District.
;(d) Veeranagouda
 S/0 Ninganagouda
Aged about 60 years
R/0 Beziheri, Nargund
Ciadag, Dharwad.



(C) Shivanagouda
S] o Vccrabhadragouda
Aged about 59 years
RIO Belkeri, Nargund
Gadag, Dhanvad.

(I) Gmunagouda
Sfo Basangouda
Aged about 45 years
R/0 Bcllcri, Nangund
Gadag, Dhmwad.

(g) Shivanagouda
Sic Rudragouda
Aged about 30 years;  
R/0 Belieri, Nargund  L
Gaadag, Dhazwad.  '

(h)     
SID Vccrismagouida .4 
Age}-.d about  

R] o Be11cri,    ~ «  
 K1  " R ijsfized under Section 121--A ofthe Kamataka Land

_ V VV _Re'forn i'3 Aéf -.a:£'ga£nst the order dated 22.5.1989 passed in

jv.~'.._LE2A.No.5'}'j86 on the file oi the Land Reforms Appefiate Authmity,

V'  péawtly aliowing the appeal and modifying the order paasad

,_    Land Tribunal, Nargurzd. in ;..m.sR.379 + 470 + 140 + 444
  1'?.11.1981. '

This LRRP coming on for hearing this day. the Court made the

u foilowing :





-5-

objecfion for recording the compromise between petitsianers and
respondents 4 (3) to 4 (h). As this is the compromise  at

between the rival tenants, there was no

the mmpmmise. The inter see Settlement

.;1;ts of the owner of the

disclose that the lcgal 1cp1escntatiai::.s.:’Qf; ‘res»1.:§qy.;dent
entitled to 1 /31″‘ share i.e., cniiiflggi
situated at southern 3.13; of w;lie’;’eas: petitieners
are entiticd to 2/3″‘ gfxtent of land i.e.,

they are. entitle} at northern side

of SuI:vcy’*No.v6§.’ petition is taken on record.
The cnntér-_1:$A Accordingly. the fiallowing

tyrcigtég isktaadc 5 ” _ _

A –:3§v-sZs_ion pefifion is dlyosed of according to the

dated 6.2.2006. The compmzznise petition

shiill fflI:’iI3.’ of the order of this Ciourt. The order of the

” L~E;I}(i Tfiiyunal. as well as tlm order Of the Appellfita Authority

‘ In-:)d1fied’ accnordirtztgly.

Sdfw
Judge

flak}