IN THE HIGH CGURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOR}$ '»T.
DATED THIS THE 1 {W my OF AUGUST 2333' "
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. .JUsr1"g'523~ '«_
R;ATm.::_e LZND cages'
am MA}?! 2ND BLQCKV' '
_. ..§{ANAF.£gNAPALYA V _
i-3eANCiALORE 1-23' """ " ,..APPELLANT
2:Bg2€fin':'1»;..f$;AV§A$£«::i'raRA PRASAD, SR COUNSEL F0? MJS K. N.
DA'i'ALU ASSC3(2IޤFES, ADV.)
V AND :
W " " .. , fi'HE*c"oMM1ss1oNER
V i53§N{iALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
V '~EéANGALORE
.1, 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
JAYANAGAR II BLOCK
ESANGALQRE 11 "PS
"\ -
(4.3
U'!
1501)
NJ
THE REVENUE CIFFICER'
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PAL}
WARS N039 GOODS SHED ROAD V .
BANGALQRE
THE ASSISTANT REVENUE r31?§«*1C'e:R:_
WARD No.39 CHADRA LAYOIJ'£'-ARO V
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA Pwizia
Go:3«s swam ROAD
BANGALQRE
SMTJAYAMMA
W10 CH1KKATHIMAiAH.__
SINCE DECEAASEJ} BY HEEgL.R_S'-..f--
sR1cHIKK£gTri€£MMArAHi _
F'ATI~iER_'_SV HAMEV. i$JO'I'_IfRC¥.W V
S/6;) LATE 'S!xof1T_J.%..YAM;MA AGED ABOUT 're YR
R/Ni' 140.915 MOGADALAMANE ' -
NAGARABHAVJ " .
cHAN{3R_A%LAY0u?. --
BANG£+.LC»RE' 7.2' ~
$21 (3(_)aWD.%--.----« -
S,%0'''<:iaIKATHIMMA1AH
; " 3/ LATEAVSMT JAYAMMA
-_AGI3.D'ABOi3.T_.35 YRS
E%.,f'AT i*€(}--..9Ei:=MOODAlAMANE NAGARABHAVI
' ' .§'3HANDRFa_. LAYOUT
B-ANGALGRE '72
, SR1 JAGAQHISH @ JAGGI
55",! O CI-IIKATHIMMAIAH
-s_,/=0 LATE Sm' JAYAMMA
'E AGED ABOUT 35 YRS
? R/AT NQ95 MOODALAMANE NAGARABHAVI
CHANDRA LAYOUT
BANGALORE 72 ... RESPONDENTS
T9!
{By Sri: V Y KUMAR, ADV. FOR RM
gm C.M.NAGAEHUSHANA, ADV. FOR R.5{A}
312: SRAJENDRA, ADV. FOR R.5(B) 85 (cm
THIS WRIT APPEAL F’! 1:51) ws “i’}§_i93H
men comm’ ACT’ PRAHNG TO 312:’? ASIDE T15: z~;o’:;§D».u;:2V.;éAssEDVVa ;
m “ma WRIT PE’I’1′}’ION NO.34?8j2()06 r>*.¢m«:pT G12/O’1.f2Q.0?.’ ..
This Appeal coming on Wthjis
day, DEEPAK VERMA, J., clclivciicgi “the foflmfiztzg. ‘
:-!_’«’LJ_>eum’w’-£~
learned Seniotr
Cleanse} Kumar, teamed on-txnscl
ibr msp0txie;f10iraINo. QM. Nagahhtmbana, lcarrmd
:r;spc»iiaen__t__Na-.5 (3) and Sri s. Rajcndm, learned
‘£bvr’rcfifisndents No. 5 (h) and (C).
‘z£f2pci1ant0 appears to be aggrieved by the order
by ‘the learned Single Judge in ‘W.P.Nn.3478/06
whereby and whcrctmder the chailcngc was made
0 ._ta””f11c cndomcmtznfa dattcd 5.8.2005 (Anncxumnl) and
16.3.2006 (Anncxurc~M) said to have been passed by
79
respondent No.4 incorporating the ne11;e_pf
Smt. Jayamma as the lchathedarof the if
for the purpose of payment of
3. The learned “afftf.’i.«.,3;n3ideIix1g the
matter from all angles, tlie that several
disputed in the wait
petition petitian filed under
Articles of India. Thus,
directed the partj ” fies ‘teV£§_ep1oac:_4’.” ‘ h£t;he competent Civil Court.
‘ _ hgvc aieegtyne thmugh the mntenta of the
jp£i.~the opinion that whatever direction has
been *i.esued~ the learned Single Judge calls for no
., _i§:1te1fezve3:iee_. * The facts as mentioned in the petition could
been gone into to be adjudicated upon by a Writ
K In this new” of the matter, 51%’ at such a filding
by the learned Single Judge, we find that no case
has been matie out. /53
5
5. The learned senior Counsel for the
a serimis gricvmce that even though the matter .
disposal before the learned Single Jgglge, ” ” 2
that no order of stay was passed
duntng the pendency of the of
khatedar has been eflizcted. _etage;* 30 1]1ot find
any merit or substance since any such
1vevenue:v’Ve’1§’iT1V’ic:a.:eV5s§;;*o1Az’:§};1VV” to fi.tieVV’§substantive rights to be
dead.’ ed isyihe .-Court. As such, if partle” 3
approach Court, they can make
” “afar grant of injunction.
6«. light of the afmesaid obsexvations, it is
H 44 ‘Vg»eedleus.~;s that as and when any applimfion for grant of
‘V.;:;g§::¢«:;on is filed before the competent Civil Court, it shat}
and disposed of in accordance with law
‘ A» “”V.;e§:ehout being influenced by any of the amendment that has
/Pd
been made in the khatha during the pcndcnQ_yf 0f; _
petition or any of the obsczvalzions made by
The appeal is devoid of merit dr «31i!;)3t;1:1(::§t:._;11;r_id’ ‘ this
saznc is hereby dismissed. No A.