High Court Karnataka High Court

Buddivantappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 6 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Buddivantappa vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 6 August, 2008
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
1

IN KARNATAKA HIGE COURT CIRCUFT BENCH, AT G{fi.:BA _f€{3VA

Bated this the 63' day of August, 2008-  é " ff  '7' 

Before

THE H{}N'BLE MRJUSTICE L i§AR;w?AN4A,$wAM&" 

W P No.6312ii?,__(}{}6 ('L1§)"

Between:

lifi}

BU§EEVfiNTAPPA
s/0 SGMRAG MAKTEBAR
asza ABGUT 66 YRS
GCC AsR:CUL$uRgf-- 3 i _f 2 v,«,__
R/AT vAmDAL1gA5AvAN'3AeEwAm:-

T9 aIJA9UR'wIsT"*; '-= *. I V..,
DEAD BY LRs:n.;V '

KASTURI BAI"i,HV V  v=_ _
wfe BU9a1wANTA?§A;- ';_*
54 EEARS," ' '.*.'u
occ: ?EACfiER,

sagsfii MAKTBEARQ

a_s£e_BG3sIaANTA9?A;"'
'AGgD 3% YEARS,

'eLecc: $EACHEg;=

VENKATgSa5gA%KEaAR,
S/OzB6fiDlVfiNTAP§A,
AGED 30 YEARS,

"fiE:A&$GmflR&

 $a:§§AR MAKTEDAR

.3 5/Q'3Uam:vANTAPpA,

AGED 28 YEARS,

""Gcc: A$R1CULTURE.

'. *AiL"AR£ RXG VAN§&L,
".gAsAvAN BAGE%ADE TRLUK,

SIJRPUR BEST.

{BY SR1 BASfiVARAJ Kfifiiflfif ~ fiDVDCATE}

"T

?ETITIGN£RS



$138

1 STATE (32? KA§€B=§ATPxFi}%.

83:' ITS E3§CREZT37§FC1'

§E:Z':3'T. GE' REVENUE

M.S.8i§ZLBEN{3 BRNGALGRE 1  -
2 LAND TRIBUERIEEL

AT Bafikvkfi BAQEWADE ,_
BIJA9UR DIST BY :?s SECRETERX

3 SANGAPPA sis 5ANuMA§9A T%Lfi§R_'u
AGED ABOUT 40 YRS " _ ;= ''V.:

'2T}3i.».3j writ petitzcsn Gaming 01': for preliminary

hééfing;4Court'made :5; following:
ORDER

claims that he is a fcnaat in respect of land

..V'{4{‘.:b.r:*a’IiQ.g Sy.N~<)_.'1:=56 measufing 12.33 acres situated at Valcial village, 8

'jfiis ciaim Cafiiit t{) be mjectetfi on 38/3] 2606 in case

" 'V.'i§~E_-:§;'fNC;SR.254/V5, 550 by the Land Tribunal, Basavanabagewadi.

V V order is impugned in {he present writ pefition.

3

2. § have heard the iearnfid counsel far thf’: petifi’oI1e::i”‘.1aa1I1eC1
HCGP and the learned caunsei for the thiré responciegzt fiefugad

the inlpugxzed order.

3. The only ground ‘taken by {he pefificngjr .-‘§i;;£: {;a::$¢

to be dismissed without afiording an is

producad at £’m31exu:*t:–B§ which disfriéscs tliatVo11 -class
sailed. Applicant N03 and absent and
respondents mmained absexrfh. ?i’h$3::a:é¢ :v$§éi5 3;’ijQu:11e(i to 16/2] 2006

cm which day there was. no sittii:g.::’VNext’V.g1:,i£.év_”fiat intimated to tbs:

petitioner. :La£”e’r 15/3/2005. On the said
Ciata, pefiticgizgf’ Exvasj Hence it was reserved and on
18/3/2006 §:l}eVVV§:2:se”ceA%:1;:6 1LT.)>’}V.1£”b’VI'(3_}’f3Ct€€_i. Hence it is clear that there
a$AAi0wh.e’iher tbs patiitioner was comntzunicateé the

néxt .._aftm” 16/ 2/ 2096. The aims and object of the

‘is {O the Claim’ of tenancy after afi'<3rdi11g an

op;3:ortunii§§. it: {fie parties C£;}I3.C€I'I1€d. It is a social ltzgislamm.

.1 . wfi;;;,1évi:r._.&th§$" case: is adjourneii to :1ex£ éate, aiways there: shall be

éitiémpt to intimate the next date of healing. when it is {mind

tin:3:t"Vthe petitioner has no ixztimation as regards the next date of

petitioner had no ojiaportunity to agspeax" before thti Land

Tribzmal. In the circumstaxices, it is just and proper to quash the

impugned. mfier and éirect the Tfibunal to consider flu: matter afmséh.