High Court Karnataka High Court

Khadar Shah Faqeer vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By The … on 1 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Khadar Shah Faqeer vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By The … on 1 April, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH coum ow KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS 'rug «,3? pm; on A9

'rrf
Jugfifi"

Khadar Shah F'aqcer,__ H

Sic I-iiiai Shah Fa1aef',"    L
Aged about 85 years, '- _ I '
Rio  ' "
Humnabad;s5E55_328;1._ :_  ~ A ' 

1. _'I'hc 'am or 
j Repreae1'1tgd'by the

 Spcmtaxy  V we Department.
M..$...B1;2i1d_1mg,  Road,

 

 ' "  _r3a:ng;a.39i~e+56o 001.

no 

V.   Commiasiancr,

 am-¢r--5s5 401.

3.  Assistant Commissioner and

V x  Land Acquisition Oficer.

 aidam-533 401.

 4. The Assistant Commissioner and

'I and Ann-M-In-H4:-su-I (Wm:-5-1'-
I11-Ililulluilliufllal-I. vu-find,

Basavakalyan-585 327.

J/'/-------
OW'



5. The Thasildar,
Hunmab ad-585 328,
Bidar District (Kamatalla).

(BY SR1.i2.K.H1i'm'l;:'.iI¢Gi'~l.i     

3 ii f I 3 ~ . i

  Petition undei' 2-26 and

227 of the Constitution 9f'I.!_1dia  to? direct the
respondents to iniplement  V   by the

reependezzt Ne.-5 on the ‘#3153″B!0′;’iiE;!3I3;KCLA/C.R-3{2(,|(.¥J-
2-001 dated 29.6.2000 for correction of
record of right, Ieeibmtion’ 9f_poese}i23ion of vacant
of 2 acres guntasi el’ S_y,’No…193 of Humnabad and
of the. campeneafibn with interest from the

ml-nrnnniinnti Na. ‘0 . nin;l,- 5″.-afifl eh-,

‘B’ ‘Group, having heard and reserved for orders,
this ‘dgy the following:-

.Q£LE_B

f At »/the ietjiieet of the counsels. the mattert is taken

V .;.;’1_fx..f”hr finial fiinnnnal.

issue ruie.

it :3. Petitioner, a Fakeer, inherited land Sy.No.193

V 7 acres 6 gnntas, situated in Humnahad

Town, Humnabad Taluk, Bidet District. Theneaiter, 4

H
II

an-I-nu Ofl lII!’I”I””t:Il nf Ia:-1:1 Inna an
uwsuw av suunuuw vs uassu Wu”:

1

1 H1: flu: Hfnfn ‘far
u uz.u..o xv:

\l\nI. II.’ IIIKJ

E
E

B

J

/\

ii

construction of Government offices and the 2

acres 26 guntas was vacant. Due to

land revenue of the said lands, the .1an’de he

by the State. Petitioner’

ltsqucal. uu the fifth memwredent, tvl-.=.e.t’ tr-.e: i.I.r-._._.1″a_’

were attached in default of Iweve- nue, he
released in his favonr ‘he is ready and
willing to ‘time. B8331 0″ this

renues; a detailed order

dated -‘£’:’%*.€n”:h;»:’2uu$”‘1-‘id””‘Ai’:ne;aum=D that am ren.,1:-eet ef

the oonsequentiy directed” ‘ ‘ the

Revenue’ Accountant to hand over the

V. = _ of land to the petitioner by following

I V’ V.,t,;e nude!’ the Karnataka Land Revenue

A_ct._jE11en after the o”d*’- “as passed the f*.fi.h

.e ‘T reepondent, no action was taken and the petitioner was

V’ ‘compelled to submit yet another representation for

F implementation of the same.

“fic-

J5

sides.

5. T is nlnnr ‘J V

t’

\-lI\l’fl-I II \I’ I III”!

the case and has
order. He has by the
petitioner and release of the

n _ . ‘_ in of H V A nicer)-n~..n.iv1nnn11 -fnm nnnfnnnfinn
GI-|nAaI..Iu\.I.._ 1.11;»: ‘Aug ;:.|.1_u 1unn._u.u:Iu usuusuu Jun annals-uuula

of’ pmatatn. ” gé , the authorities ofthe
St:ate_sroti&d with the said order. There is

no for the respondents in not

” t}:1evi1npug11ed order. The petitioner has

‘ 3.-L’…Q. ….”.-.4. 4… … .
L-“DELI £1 ‘£5 ll) 1 J. In

A

-Iain’-pain: ‘manual ‘-53-: 1-urn’-I ‘II-gunman’-an-.n aw’. Iv’-has
1 ‘cl ‘ |-ll ‘II

of the order.

¢ 1-… 4.1.3.. …a….. …r 4.1….
~~ U. usuuuv Ivulum

A writ of mandamus be issued directing the
respondents to ixnpletnent the order passed by the fifth

J/–#~
‘Q/\

m A*Ine2;u2’e-‘D -vi.I….sut……’-i’-11.. 29;V6.2E’)0(é._

‘l’I’\I’\ .I’II’I1I’.l ll’ ii

…._I _._ _ A1- 17.. 1- _ _I-1 _n-Ll ‘ V_.,nn-u
nu 1 1 u use nIu.nnu[num/was-a/’4uu_u:£vU1

vide Armexure-D dated 29.5.2000 and V

given em-act to after followhlgi-€116-due’_”” r

the Karnataka Land Revenue ”

“I

m.-nt.hs _ ..m 1.11.: de-.t_. 9. 0 01″” h ‘
N0 order as to Qosts,” —

Rule made       '