IN THE HIGH comm OF KARNAi1*A;¥<A;
DATED THE 2&9 DA$%'%QF Apm. 22969
,.f3EFQARE:' % % j
THE HQNBLE MR. L,N.%é;i'{Aa?AHA SWAMY
wnrr (Lg:
BETWEEN: L % %
1 M.V.
AGED ABOLVE 6'! YEARS
s/0 LATE %
R143 MANNE \.fH;J._gAGie".2__
T AMAGONDLUHTOBLI
BAPEGALORE» DISTRICT PETI'I'IONER
s:§isV;cr§;a.'mx1ARAYA«REDDY: AIJVOCATE)
J NANJLWDAPPA @ NANJUNDAIAH
AGEI) ABOUT 69 YEARS
" S/O L£¥i'E ADAVIAPPA
V ~ 1210: MANNI3 VELAGE
. TH¥AMAGoNDLU HOBLI
NTELAMANGALA TALUK
% x .. __BANC;'rALORE RURAL DISTRICT
~22 THE LAND 'rRmUNAL
NELAMANGALA TALUK
NELAMANGALA
BANGALORE RURAL DIST S S
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAS f y *
3 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA S' M
BY ITS SECRETARY TO ' S ~
GOVERNMENT REVENUE I3I*3PAR1'MENT"
M S BUILDING _
I)R.AMBEDKAR vESm~H '
BANGALORE --- 560 001 *
{By SR} P.N NANJA'R_EDI3iY my 3
THIS WRIT PE'F¥F{ON.._jI?IL%!3D'_PRAYiNG TO QUASH/ SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED' ORDER Dér.3-6-2003 PASSED IN
LI2FMEN~23/$5575 BY R«2"'J{DE ANNJVI.
'FHIS 'WRfI' on FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE comer MASS THE; FOLLOWING:~
. T emnm
_ Tfie is the tenant has challenged the
Vt:lj1S"'I.and Tribunal Nelamangala in LRF MES
/75435 dated?o3/o6/ 2003.
"The petitioner Submits that he is in possession of the
_ question as a tenant as on the appointed date.
he has placed relevant entries in the revenue records
'the Same has not been considerw by the Land Tribunal.
\
3
3. The petitioner has relied on Vjferg
the ymr 1968=--69 where the name ''
overwritten by writing BaIugu.zaiah'e'* L.
that though the petitioner is land in
question an illmal by oirer=-wrifilxg
B 's name. In to 1975-75 the
name of the column 12(2) of
the RTC. petition.
4. The 4' for the first respondent
2 try; in question from one Sri.
The petitioner disturbed the first
reswndent ie’peeeession in respect of the land and hence he
Nov….t136/1973 for injunction which was granted in
against which the petitioner flied MA No. 55/ 1974
it to be dismissed and same was challenged in
347175 and it was allowed and the matter was remitted
for fresh consideration. The ‘I’ribunal after reconsidering the
“\
4
matter granted occupancy rights in favour _.f, _i__i’2e V
Again 1″ Respondent challenged ‘
7606/ 1976, which was allowed end .
and matter was remitted to for flesh
consideration. Hence
5. It is counsel that the
revenue eI1t1’ie::e the respondent was
in RA 17/ 200 L052
and the to on 24/05/2002, against
which the revision petition in R.P. No.
to be dismissed on 28/04/2003.
The 2 iibeen challenged before this court in WP
39()392[o20.(,§3AT(KLR RES]. It was also dismissed by this
‘ on 0z8/1:39/2003. In View of the order passed by this
_fi1eA«A’enuy made in favour of the 15* respondent has
upto this court. All these aspects have been
% *–..?e”oneide1ed by the Land Tribunal and found that the
*\
5
petitioner has not proved that he was a ‘:43-
1974 and hence rejected his claim.
6. I heard the arguments »m_adev4by_i’both V.
7. The contentions ._ is by illegal
method his name was i 1969 and
Baraguraih h’s nafm’ A the said year.
” teW1v975~76 1″ responde-:nt’s
name is eiitexfed to scrutiny by Asst.
Commissioner, _ and this eourt. Hence the
the ‘I’ribunaI is just and proper and is
in In the circumstance, Writ Petition
Vvfails amieit is aceordingly rejected.
‘ iieuée this appeal is rejected.
Sd/”it.
Judge