High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Kamalamma W/O Late Padmanabha … vs The Land Tribunal Udupi on 21 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Kamalamma W/O Late Padmanabha … vs The Land Tribunal Udupi on 21 November, 2008
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
, 1 W
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED 'THIS "mg 21" DAY 0? NOVEMBER, 2003

BEFORE

'me i-iON'BLE MRJUSTICE MGHAN 5HA¥\l}"AN.4'::<3.;I}%;§i§g;}~?;iI:_:V" 

wan' pgrznow 510.7475/zoo? (L::2.s2§g;   ~ ~  _  

E3Z€'¥'§V ESE N;

1.

Smt. Kanzaizunma _
W10 Late Pacimanabha Adiga
Agéuzl about ‘?6 yeam

‘E, Raghu-5Prézgaiififidigziy V V
S/’ o'”Patima:[1abfi§;i ;’\(i.ig§i’
Aged abmii’3§$~§féaI’S’«v.._ __ .

Bofli.a;n:=._Rja ra2..::e.d’u;: T\”«’—i_ gs
Udupi Sn Ei’isst£ic”t– ‘ ..Pstiti,cmem

{By j§§:i’ re, Nagezmiré’ Naik, Adv.,)

K Ufiupi iiiigtiiici, Udugi
T_aI1:]g: €}.fi.’i<::(t, Udupi.

‘ L * % s:a%%A:§*am:ha Padmanaba “kmpie

‘T P¢1’a:i ur Viilagfi
” .._R§:p by its Exacufiive Gflicer

Peradur Viflage, Udupi Taluk. ..Resp0n€ie11tS

u Sri RB Smtyanarayana Singh, HC’.{}P., for R1;

Sri K. Vishwa:t1a’£.§:1, Adv._, for R2}

This Writ Petéfion is .filec:’£ under Articless 226 8:. 2f2″–?_ cf
the Cfonstituiion. Bf llzdia praying to quash AnneXui€~C3x<:§.at€.{i

12-1-200? 22:1 Appeai Nc:.},6'?'2/2003 on the fi1€".()Vf-. flf}.£'§~.'
Iéarimtaka A}fapr::Ha.t€: 'I'ri3:n1z1a1, Bangalore ané (ii;§h1§S$–.

appeai fiied by the R2.

This Writ Pefitiatna coming GI: f<:r»Aprfi:li2ui'i1aij{ x

'B' grcmp this day, the Clmlri; manic the foiiewfifig :* A ' ' V
0 R. my .E___3 4 L M
Tbs pefitionar be tizé mflleé

appiicafieix in Formv ~–_fl1€: — 'AEAE{3H1"x3{1p€it61'1t
authority, praying fggf A bearing

swim.129/23§%:i;§;§e;s:1ri:1g%3§a ¥t~é§1§:é§;Vvsi§ifiated at Perdur

\«'iiiage,7 Udu;pA i'L"–"T-313111;.'~ R<3:§p0:1deI1t N62 is the land

awner. Udupi, Vida Amiexure-«B,

date'-:1_§j&'6.2..20§}Q ~ occupancy rights in faxzour of

Respcndent No.2 filed appeal before the

'§'ribun.a1 in 1672/2003. The

V –V appéed to be aiiawad by the irnpugleti ordar at

4"'v.';'3:1nI1Ii@§'.§1iLV[V'é*{_"3, dated. 12.1.2<307. Haxzae, this writ petitian

M ism.

1/k

,3»

The Iand in questiml measures

S”j;£.N0.129/23 af Perdur vmage,

As::c€3re:ii11g to the petitioner, the-fie I’E;jsi’r}c«::1:ti..j1f1%i{§S{;g: pmvisicsns of ma
” {far short }T1ereiI1afi£.:1′
refer:I’ é’-ti §a;§ hot attracted it} the 131111 in’
€i’3″3?”q’i_iUIt; “‘ V’ ”

the era} assertiori that the petitioner is

in .paS’s$$s_ic;3,i”i:af the property in question as ‘t;e1″1a.I1t G1″

a g””:3-Vifséixiitural 1311:}, 110 d<:3cLm1e;1ts are }1)I'<}d!.1(3€C1 on

' £1r;3"4_.A'b§%ha}f, in support csf her case. The eopies cf the

:jét:i§i"£i af rights aic:-mg xsz:ith the writ petition 'afidfi

2 'E3:I1i1fi)i£1Y€~A, do not disclose, the zuame of the petitienar

or hm" prede:cess9rs. Mere over, the lease: 3331 question in

favour of the petitimler appears to be fcvr. "fi0:1«-

agricxflturai purpese, inasmuch as the ~

abaut 3%: 0:-znts (about 30' X ' V

titie petiiioxmr 9:11}; for 1'eside11tiai'ap1Lifpdséj=.'I'h.§§

tha L&1'l<'§ "1'ribLi-I131 else _ Hui" §1i3<_:}§i:§vse"':._;fii2;t the: " L'

pefitianer has been ,.–cu1fiva*;i§ig~. flag 1;)fi"3§)'E.*}T'iLj£7v.'§ Mezrely
b€C1€:3.1iSEi the pefifionéf ' the pmpezty in

questit:-I1, Sim .ciia'.3:2:1<3t;_'Abe{ .._tiic:";«i.-'and in question

"L111deI*} SectA_iéi'i._–v??E;.Aof Ad. The petitianer may be
€11tit.ied"'£;{;{prfitr::c€:'* hc=ffiésfiassion til} Sim is evicted in

accqrdazioe 131395 by having recamse to the:

p1iQ§iisi{31?12~:.:c§f._Qihe1" laws, but she caxmot be graimzd the

§§§i{fti0i1 77A of that: Act. in this View {If 'aha

1na ii.e1';-.'.£i"i<i" a aiiate aufiiuritv is fistififid in re'e{:tin
_ P W 3

'é4'p1"§3;yer {sf the piititioncii' and in Setting aside C116

' of 1:116 Land 'I'ribu_11a1. Heilce, t.i'1;is Ceuri (1065 I131;

Kr"

K351

fiiiii a3;’1y I'{i§iS{)I’1 10 iI’1’£€~I’f€I’€ wiih Q16 «:;0I1C1usi1j;_fc;ai:1i{–:<i" ~ V

by this appaiiate aufi'101*it3;,

Hfifitfit, writ petition fails 331%}

dismissed.

*::tk/ bs;1’1– _