74 » "'1.RALIANN;é's;__o THAMME GOWDA STTHAMMEGOWDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF I.i;iEc;fi)"wt>A" AGED Aaom 65 YEARS _ Q _'FHvIMMA'RAY_5.' GOWDA ,Q_T.AG-Ia.f§,_A:30Ufr 45 YEARS ' ..PET1T10mf+:Rs 3. TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT KALKERE VELLAGE ' CHEKKATHIRUPATHI P03? ' AA .-LAKKUR HOBLI " , MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DIST AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S] 0 THAMME GOWBA J: '-v 6 S T MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O THAMME GOWDA PETITIONERS 5 85 6 ARE R/A SAMPANGERE VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR B131' 7 SRINIVASA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS s/0 THIMMARAYA GGWDA R/A KALKERE VILLAGE LAKKUR H0813 " V MALUR TALUK, KOLAR I;:>is'r"=.._ ' _ ..;~--PE'f'IT§O§NE§RS (BY SR1: MUNIYAPPA _ _ SR1: s KALYAN BAsAVA_r§;A;J, 5;:j)1.Is)'»» _ AND : 2 '§'I-IE'1'25I44iL4\Si'I;1)AV£\"§ ' -- H MALUR'~l'_A£;l.}K-_ 3:31.53 Dlsflfmcr L "willie:-."::>E'i:%IJTY Céhamlsslousa ~§s:0I.;AI? 'DISTRICT .4_T.x0.L_Ag " RESPGNDENTS ' .._gBY $Rf1'_:' LRVIKUMAR, HCGP) V ' +TI-HVS'WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNEER ARTICLES 226 N NO'; 81[02 REJECTING THE APPEAL IN AS MUCH AS Y1' VRELATES TO CONFIRMING THE REUECTION OF THE '4 'APPLICATION MADE BEFORE THE 2"" RESPONDENT,
L
/-
v.
DEPUTY COMMISSEONER, KOLAR DiS’¥’RIC’I’ K01_,_aR-
ANX-A; E’I’C.,
This Writ Petition comirlg V—9I1~– .f9rT
hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the :.€’,efur2i_ madex
foilowingz V
onnegg
The petitioners .. :4 iipmer
dated 4.12.2003 passeti $13?’ Appellate
Tribunal in Rey; appeal. The
said order is” ‘aig; VA to the petition.
The petii;ive11erAAhé;;-3 fora mandaznus te direct
the seeonti proceed with the matter
beaxmg “I\Eo.DV.V’CRV.:iG8)’98–99 tifl the decision 01’ the
ifi:€),S.No.95/0}.
pefitioners contend that they are the
“‘§;1’>s?i:ezfi§*.; possession of the property bearing Sy.N{).94
situate at Ch1’k.’x;at1’rL1pat11i vilkage, Lakknr Hobii,
‘ “e.e’VM51ux Taluk, Koiar district. The second
$
”4
respondent/Qeputy Commissioner had *
ixiitiated proceedings in Case
and had uitimately passed the order 7.:
wherein the Hakkudharsl fighiis–§#’if1ichd’had Aiigreetee
to the fore fathers of tgiie “eeineelied.
Against the said order, before the
Kariiataka Appeliede. $30.7 19/1998
and 43/199-9] *i>ee’eK3rismdi ‘e Tribunal by its
order dated’ aeide’ itlie order dated
30. 1 1.1998vV”peissed– t:’1e.:V_:i3e;;Luty Commissioner and
remanded. the _f?ord”vreeonsideratioz1. Dining the
1§$eiid.eney{‘o§,” remafitied matter certain villagers are
Vaidpfieafions for imp}.eading thenzzseives
as parties ” proceedings before the Deputy
” i.i,3::_i1;ui:1.issio:1ei”. The petitioners herein had. objected to
Simultaneously, the petitioners herein had
‘”Vi’a:’ieo.__.i11stituted a suit in O.S.Ne.9E3/2001 seeking
“eeexereeen of their title in respect of the suii eeheeuie
i
‘1
3. The petifioners have relied en
documents in this Writ Petition te irxdieatefihatt A ”
name of the fore fathers of the petitioixesfis etxe
in the kathedar register fiom the year
and subsequently the rf:VeI1t1€:v..:§’?i?:tI’i€.&’;
name of the petit:ioI}e1°:::; it is””i”t:ifi:1}e:?.._e0Iitei1cie{i that
when this was the pasitieilg Dept1’ty~~.CQmmissioner
has unilaterally. fights and
1’31 any evtetity :”c;1f:Cier sustainable. The
petitionefs. ‘ec;i1te:VIid’ f »..:’they have inherited the
properjty,fr0zii”tI1eir’:–for’e fzithers and are in pOSS6SSi(}Z£’1
Véind oftthetv same and as such their right
esnfiet ‘i:~e”i1:terf;e 1fed wim.
_ [4…-…A’éV1’he respondents have filed their objection
estatefient to the Writ Petition. In the objection
‘statement, the ecmtention put forth by the petitioners
” have men opposed ané it has been contended that the
t
“S
eenc1i3.sio13;.
with regard to the right to the property
case would have to be deeidtfjd… _-‘the e-.1: .4
Commissioner since the matter has bees’ remafided :i3:~.yi;j
the Tribunal. Hence short
eonsiderafion by this ‘as ted the
proceedings before the should be ‘
allowed to the suit in
o.s.No.95/2ooie%odsv}§e;; a.1a;ge;- to be decided
by the revenue documents
which are-relied partiee could also form
the evi_c§ez1cedferV_:the’.(3iiri} te uitimately come to its
I13′ regard, a peruse} of the order dated
1×2,2(}(“)8_.Aé:’passed by the Tribunal would indicate that
A has approved the dismissal of the said
Ii’ epfilication by neticing mat the same has not been
‘A ‘inade ir1vok:i:x}g the appropriate provision of iaw and if
$
‘-T
fled against the vfliagers. Presently, the pet.itione,?:sV_Vs1:4e~V._
claiming right in respect of the property contenriitigf
they have inherited the property
doubt, the petitioners have referred 7-1:
documents to establish
of declaration of right and tit;et§5versssu;e .si1it..,sc.tiedu1e
property has been * to the plaint
indicates that are the
very and 94 of
Ch1’kkatIiimipat11i Taluk, Kolar District.
1-j”‘£’he._ herein have entezed
suit and have flied detaiied written
statexnent.-sriiereirl the vexy contentions which are now
‘ ” objection statement in this Writ Petition
urged in the Written statement. Therefore, in
Hi” ‘thesaid written statement, the respondents have also
“evened with regard to the nature of revenue entries to
J»
p-
“5
E2
comes to the conclusion that the _
to be withdrawn, yet several other rights whiof: ‘4
open to be decided before the Civil [fee
completed. In such event, to
multiplicity of proceedings ane.e{e:ero;e, in
a fact of this nature whe2e_ are involved
between the also before
the Civil AtheV_ respondents have
._ also filegiv ‘theirs. is appropriate that
the – ..-issue before the Deputy
Commissioner’ gasses oirder one way or the other.
Without pronouncillg upon the right
as oi-aj;med~tt1e parties, limiting only to the aspect of
” I Lreiieféi’ prayed before the Karnataka Appellate
with regard to the stay of further proceedings
= …fore the Deputy Commissioner till the Civil Court
” ” decides the issue, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal
}
7-I