Dayananda vs Land Tribunal on 6 August, 2009

1 V .
IR ram HIGH counm or KARHATAKA Am Baxsgfiagn
DATED mxs was 6"' my or   
PRESERw-_  4 fl   '
THE HON'BLE u. ausmfianfix;L; fi§fi§U§é$Hf. 
T #N? 2 '_ ._. . % V
max HON'BLE MR. qfi§$:¢a_R$§i fig;fiMAmH
WRIT Aé9$§L'&p;§§&/2§G8_ (LR)
BETWEEN:  .R :,W j*' . '   .V'
1.

Dayan§flfi%:%§§’§§%¥3; im§
2- Ké:a¥a##f=6€ yéa%§,’:

3. Kam$1§,sé’yé§r§;

4.,§dma, 4§ y§§rs,

g 5; Vi#fiwafia§h, 3? years,

afii1 éfiéxdfiiidren of Paddu
Sheragatg’and R/at ‘Mathxu
Chayaf,’Kunjuz Daxkast,

*. Post Eaniyor, Udpi Tq. .. AF?ELLANTs

‘, f{By Advocate Sxi.8.H.Bhat)

1. Land Tribnal,
vdpi Tq. by its Saxetary.

2

2. Sanjeevi G.Shetty w/o
Jagazmath Shatty
Paniyoor, Udupzi. ‘I’q.

3. Taxa S.Shetty d./o Appi
Shadthi, R/’at Paniyocmfl,
Udupi Tq. ‘

(Advocaiza Sri . S .__ H ‘f for R-1)

1 AEE3P€fiDENT$

?his wrLt”a§pe$1 ié’£iié§.u$er Sec.4 of The
Karnataka Bignfgqumt Agt an sat aside the order
passed in w? Ed 1643272Qo3_ ‘;ed 7.3.2008.

Thi§W”Ap§¢a15 :$*fcmifi§’ on for preliminary
hearing’, this ” J. delivex-ad, the
following: – — *’a w.*«~

L

‘”_¢bn§Q£fénfi findings at the order of the Land

‘ “».Tribu§1_ah§x£he arder passed in W? un.1s43o/2003

2008 are questioned before us in this

Appellants are the legal heirs of one

H -«..”1§§,raisi Bai who had filed an application in Form

before the Land Tribunal, ‘ifdzxpi claiming

occupancy rights in respect of 1–10 acres of land

-Ԥ-z/

4

after hearing the parties has dismissed the writ
peti ticn concurring with the findings {sit the
tribunal. Challenging thse ordar§{fi”§3§$ent

agpeai is fileé. ii

2 . We have heard the fior

Mr.Prakash Shetty, counsel

Govt. Advocate for R-3..

3. cn.1.y_.5’point that arises for
our intrawcourt appeal is

whether tiizgéi :””‘…_§3’_ng1e Judge was right in

_ .. V-mvzfit’ V petition .

23 fin of Form Rm’? produced beforc the

ccurigi that Form No.1? was filed by Narasi

occupancy rights under one fiandu

But the evidence discloses that she was

rent of R.s.10-00 per year to one Shyamaraya.

V”*»jshett. In Fbrm Ha.? she has specifically state

the nature of the land as punja anci in form §Eo.7

{V

This aspect of the matter has been
learned single Judge. In of’
findings of the learned 4′:
tribunal as the counsel fat’-,_’the 1

unable ta convince us ,3 “:~.§z’c+:.1;’::::i.:<%us:VVf%e1;'rx-eciating the
evidence by of the parties

before thigf to take a

taken by the laamed

single

4 . tizewfippeal is dismissed. l

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd/4
EUDGE

R/100809