IN THE HIGI-I comm' or KARNATAKA, "
{By sni: sAi$i'A'1*I~1 ADV )
AND :
-1-
mma THIS THE em DAY 0;? T T
BEFORE
THE H()N'BLE MR.JUsT:c12; MoHA3~:R§:1jD'£'%
WRIT PE'rmoN No. 7298 2oo9%{t;jB--*RE$)
1 SR} M K BADARUDMN' 7.
S/O. LA'I€E:'M;.£.' REHAMAN _
AGE 44.v1:'.Ai3_$_;_ 'V 4.; .
R/AT r:0.:s02, FAN Asv APAR'-i'MENTS
'V "
MFLNGALGRE-5§7'5 'O93
' -- " PETITIONER
" M;{iR1Ai$i3v1A*rEMPLE
' URVA,"MAN'GAE-.ORE
I Ra:P.1:sY:'mjs MANAGING TRUSFEE
93' .
sR1;"%GoPAL.a.r:R1sHNA SUVARNA
ADiILT,, MARIAMMA TEMPLE
URVA? MANGALORE
V»'?'HE«--.AMA'§IGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
_ ' -.LA1.BAGH, MANGALORE, 0.1:.
% REP. BY rrs CQMMISSIONER
V' "#33 JOINT COMMISSIONER
' MANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
LALBAGH, MANGALORE, D.K.
RESPONDENTS
M
-2-
THIS WRIT PE’I’I’I’iON IS FILED UNDER AI¥XI’¥CLESe-225_”_’e
AND 22′? OI? THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA…PRA§rINO-._*I’O_’ «.
QUASH THE ORDER DT. I7.1I.2OOe.4pA3sI3;D’e–..I3Y *I’.§..I.E’-,
JOINT COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE; “MAHA,NAGARAg_
PALIKE (R3) IN PROCEEDINGS v1DE’=.AN9_:4za. AN-]§} .’33’}’C2. ”
THIS PETITION COMIN’fr “‘-ON FOR OR’Oees’;v’rI§IIs
BAY, THE COURT MADETHE FOLIgOWING:~._ I -‘
The petitioner Kannada
was granted 48-A of the
Karnatake. respect of lands
n3IeasuIi ieyg”VV(3:4’: 1 in Sy.No.64/ IA of
Boioor by order dt. 19.10. 1978
In LI2’If;24e;?7_ u7:3 Of. Land Tribu:ea}-I, Mangalore
‘V toviifiiieh the lands were permitted to be
tiifgrefiede non-ag’icu1tural purposes by order of
cOnver_siOI1~ Of: ‘the Deputy Commissioner under the
.. Land Revenue Act. The petitioner claims to
–.;3I§rehased the entire extent of land, under a deed
Of,,_eOnveyanee*exeeu%:ed by his Vendors in title. The
1:Ietit.ior1er’s request for regetration of katha of the said
Eek
-3-
property falling within the territorial _§UI’iSdiC1§iG:’if
Mangalore Mahanagar palike was t
made in the name of the
17.7.2007. It is the allegatiooof sizevitpetsticsteg 3 ,
3111 respondent by order dt. of
the Joint Palike,
cancelled the katha ‘ ttE§e”V”petitioz1er as
there was and decree of
the Civit Thereafter, the
petitioxier _ before the District Judge,
which of jurisdiction by order dt.
22.2.3009. Heheethisiwrit petition.
of the order impugned
Joint Commissioner having noticed
fméiiftgs of the Civil Court in the Judgment and
Tot.” as extracted in the order, held that there was
..sL_1§”}pressio:1 of material facts by the petitioner at the
~ “time of securing regsuation of katirla and hence called
L4
-4-
for its cancellation. In addition, the Joint
foilowing the decision of this court ho1di31g;V:”_jt13aAt..::u;he€i »
there are rival claim and dispute
dispute is to be decided _by_ tI1e”._( :’iviI ii’.
mutation may be entered fegister,
accordingly by the eeixeefied the katha
in the name ef__£h.e that the
parties “eivil court.
4. :8-‘ie “cause the order discloses
that as the applicant, Iwrned
counsel for ‘the’ submits that the petitioner
” was ae respondent in the said proceedings,
V’ _: ,1 st respondent, herein.
4
.21», petitioner having not eontreverted the
” fi:1Gi;eg of the Joint Commissioner, more appropriateiy
eeeemée.§t1ie order dt. 13.4.2007 in w.P.No.1495/2002 and
‘ ” Judgment: and decree in the Orignal Suit, extraetied
in the order impugned, no exception earl be taken to the
M
,5-
reasons, findings and conclusions arrived g.«t:~.
authority.
The writ petition is :.IZ5l’§I”i’§._
accordingly rejected.
i