High Court Karnataka High Court

Basappa S/O Laxman Mang vs State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Basappa S/O Laxman Mang vs State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH coum or K13RNATAK_!$_  ' 7  L" 3

cmcurr amen AT nnanwga.  ' 

DATED mas THE 1%» ma?  E'§}3i§Ef5R*?,' 2j%ea9%%%% ' _ 

BEIETORE  V'

THE HOIFBLE MR JUSTICE éH--.AmAh§Aé§iI'bAR

wnrr PE1*1%:*Iz:m N.a’;6Gé2o ‘i%2ce9{kLR)”V

BETWEEN: ‘V

BASAPPA, ”

AGE 48 YEARS; .o:;::_<::;'.AC1§:{:ULT:;:';'::a,

RXO BHEENDAWAL} v1L:,AG°;;';. : V
T'Q.: RA;_;3_5G;~ .3313? :§E;TQm,I'M;* . 1, V .. PETITIGNER

gs? sR3:I__. sA«.:ifi'1:?4.3.;_VM5G;xf}':;:M, ADv.;

AND:

3:. ~3f3’AT’:~:*. OF’ KA:<:Ng{rA:-;A,

" REPRESENTEE BYSECREETARY

– ., RE;\fEE¥{U.E”}’?%EPAR’I’MEN’I’

_ I§zI,S.’B_§.}§I.}3J_N%,.*§, BANGALORE 360 991.

‘t:%;;:°U?;*”§ia:,*.ajé’M:x;:zss10Nm,
‘BEL§f§ALI1’=–.r§, 913.? BELGAUM 590 00:

8. RSSE$TfiNT COMEVEESSEQNER,

AA *ff’_,;}§1E~2IC3SI, TA, CHIKQDI 5&1 QZEE

V’ V. __::i;is*:’. BELGAUM.

THE REVENLEEENSPECTOR,

QAIBAG, TA. RAEBAG 3391317,
QEST BELGAUM’

5″ BRAGERATHE B§~iP;GAVVA,
Wfi} SEDRAM MANG,

AGE? 63:3 YEARS, OCC: Hfw
R/C} BHENBAWAQ, TAL RAIBAG,
DIS’? BELGAUM.

(BY SEE. BAHUBALI A. DANWs*~.DE, ASH. é’§C’}é _ . __ V .
SR1 ;:3Ii:§ (}’§ ‘the Land Revefizta Act, am questiatzneci in this

“‘ . W:it }:)€tiii{>1′:1 – . V

H €: “V.1’€§f:0::i$’

pi-‘rriaining to the praperty in q3’I€fi§;it::$1″3.’c.-2

also attssted by the petjfi0I:é;*.___masfi:1_1éh. as; {fix ;

have agrersd 33:31″ catering the 5i%%VV:réfiSp{$:§1(}e11t ever
{he laizd in questimn; éxitfired the
mama ef the 5″? respQ;;§§:e};: Emmy §VEo,3{) 14
{iated 30:2: J2;:y;*g§94 T315 said may sf
‘(ha year by the petitiener by
Commissicnm” $11 the
yeazr éppeai came “£0 be iiismissed.

Ftlrther, 1’€13isi:3Ii,:–._xa%h§éh was fflfifi by {Em }_C}€:iifiOI1€1’, 3139

” ‘~ ‘::}%é;f¢fi%$ tha applicatien which was {$113}? Signed by the

” ., “§;ei§’t;7oii€r. Responder}? N05; :12 none ems: than {he gemztive

–;£a@’:iéf,’* §:azasv 3″

partitifin betwfiefl the famfl}? meizgbegrs

fallen to the share of his adoptivs *

3130 (lisputedk I Disputed _f;§:f f’%1.(.3’t,.VV;(K)’$lg1I1<L"i*f't ha gone
into in the writ Isamé, "the Caurts
btilow were justified to approach
the Civil impugned ordsrs
are just ~ and circumstazlces.

Hencggv gmuxld to ixztarfere in

impugihad’ orfilaxég ‘ ‘ . ”

– . Ektiiéfion fa:£ k§’.”~–~~§ismissad.

S5! -1
Iuclqe

km§r .,