:1»: THE HIGH comm' 012* KARNATAKA, BANu'_§}x$j;O:}§EV M k
DATED THE 16TH DAY Oft%' J'L1_NE :
Bspokfigk
THE HOWBLE MR. J_USTIQE.i;;'N1'%RfiYRNA%.,SW}XMY
WRIT pmrzou %rr:,>.L'k--4id2:é%:[2no1
1 3 K RAMA;I{RIi§ffINEf§«Q§'§DA.«V :; k'
S]0VK;§3Iv$,E%E(§5§3;?f}A~'.V, *-'
MAJQR,__ RES--i{31I_§*f{3i szr" B__O-MMANAHALI3
GUNnANAHALL:£%os':*%
NAGAMANGALA 'FAL{}'§fQ'p.RAGt:1::1 V A
HEGGADADEVANAKOTE M
KEMPEGOWDA
s/0 BOREGOWDA V
MAJOR
BOMMANAIé1£aLL1 GIjJ"N"I )E:NA::HA AA¢k%JjnL.:%
NAGA§1A1szc:;A1gsA%*mL&1)K%
NINGAMMA ..
W/0~'SA?€NEGOWDA~.b
C/O'.PATEL''i€;'§L§3€}OW'DA« :
KUCHEHALLI VILLAGE '
GUND§}vNAHALI.I"TAll§§{'
NAGAMA'NGAI,A--_TALUK
¥<;33:_§:'is/£PB:'1V1~I&%IA %%%%% .. .
* / O_VKALE<3rOWfiA
A '"£§£{3'€3§~i4,E€;}~§J§LLLL§. GUN9ENA1~mL1,1 POST
»NAGAM'ANc}ALA TALUK
BQRAMMA
W/CIJOGIGOWDA
. AA MAJOR GUNDENAHALLI
' "NACiAMANGALA
ESANNAMMA
MAJOR
W/O HR. KRISHNEGOWDA
SAVAKERE HINIDE
HEGGADADEVANAKOTE
i
3g RAJAMMA
W/O SWAMYGOWDA MAJOR
cg:/0 MUDDAPPANA BHOOMI
HONNEMARADA I-IALLA
KOTAGIRADU POST
T HEGGADEBEVANAKOTE TLA{3KA" " . T .; 1 . =
X
{By SR1 RKUMAR FOR mas R2,: MR_.ES}1WAR, = * "
MR C.R.GOULAY FoR'R3_(B)) A " ' =
THIS WRIT PETYPIGN {S "'-RE.GiSTE}7<?§V3D EON THE
TRANSFER OF APPEAL L,§iaALR;& N0. j3V8"€;,/"86 FILED BEFORE
THE LAND REFORMS APP'ELI..gATE?~;.»£gU'F§jiQ}"{IT'Y MANDYA.
THIS WRIT PWI'}'i{}IVI"'»}-Sf CQ:»4£1:»i(3T;ii§Tz<:"§Fo12 HEARING
THIS my, THIS m:,jRT MADETHE' §°{}LLDWING:
zisiznnn
é.A~.§¢nan{5$ writ petiiien chailengng the order
agteé /sxmégassed by the Land Tribunal, Nagamangala
'i"'a1uki':1 LRF' N542/79w3o rejecting his claim fer conrennem
'(if .VT,.'f<_*.(21;tpa}:1£:'.§; rights in respect of small bits of land in
S:;§N.§s.5'5, 56, 55/103, 44/2:, 55/5 of Bommanahalhl vinage,
T fifafgainangala Taluk and aiso S};.No.2'7 ané 9/5 of
.IuKxooc§1aha1ii viliage, Nagam gaia Taluk.
2. Earlier he filed W P No.6'"/'9/84 agaieet
order. During the pendency of H
Reforms Appellate Authorities were
wrii: petition. was transferred on' --;§ib§}1ifi(511' (if the V
appellate authority, writ registered by this
Court.
3. I for the petitioner,
thizfi ree§;eiidee§§A:e High Court Government
Pleeder gene feeord.
. V. ?'1'he..'1ear1'§e'§ eeuneei for the petitioner contends
t1iatVV vjgeiitiener has examined himself am: ene Sri
"V"Appe.§ifgow<;§a. Appejigowda has supported his case and
" " 'T a before the Land Tribunal that the' petitioner
the land for the last 6»? years which faiis in the
VT .:yea.r 1978 satisfying the requirement ef $eetie1f1 48%; The
.'}iieti'£io3i'1e:' has also depoeed that he has been eelfivating the
iaxzd in question 0:} gutta basis and he used te" pay the rent ix}
kind to the third respondent. The petitioner has
deposed that third respondent is not residing
and therefore he has given the taut} to the petitio’ner’i–i.on. i
basis. It is submitted that the ‘
considered these aspects andttpassedia ‘hon :s1}eakVii;1g_:1o:tde15 L.
and therefore the order is liabie iilterfetted Court.
5. The Ieamed v{}i>veI:imei:*t:.._VP1:eader sngéported the
impugned e14d7e1i7_., _ VRTC entzy shewing the
cuitivation the tenant as on the appointed
date. The ‘:I’ri1’§una1’fias.”-Coiisidered all the material evidence
passed thRee~ee:1siderec1 order needing no interzference from
this .C3eu14t;-. ‘ fa. ., – . V
it 6. *’i’¢he 1ea.:rned couneei for the LRS. 9:” third
tfe_ep.endent submits that petitioner has failed to preve his
i eeetigeatien and cultivation of the land in question as a. tenant
on 1/3] 1974, evidence of Appajigowda. if ef no help to the
petitiener when he says that he does not know whether the
petitioner is cultivating the Land on Gutta basis
not know whether the third respondent is
village, there is no entxy of name of I-tIie’–§1etii;io1:V1ef’V:vi;1xeeiufisnV’
12(2) of the ETC. Though the petitiei1e1;”:3TV_
for 19’75«~76, it is of no assistanee”‘».[0 t1V1.e””te’ prove’
his case of tenancy. thesej4reé1tei’ia1e””aI’e properly
considered by me Lane rreeege order of the
Tribunal is a coneitiefed (S:’de1″-Va:§a1ii1:5i[gi_”E7:).1f__1ffae interference form
“1? , ‘V From the ‘materials placed on recerd, no materiaie
__the petitioner to Show his tenancy and
eee1eeeeT;e 2/3/1974 and prior thereto. The
V;*c:}Ve.tie1;e13z,i1’§:«V.e:’ V’ landlord and tenant is not proved by the
The evidexzee ef Appajigowda is 3139 of no
beeauee he states in the evicienee that he does not
V whether the petitiener is cultivating the land en gutta
basis and he does not know whether the third respondent
resides in the village. It has jilse eeme in evidence the: Sri
Sr
Appajigowéa is a relafive of the petiticmer. Thought
of the petifioner is shown to be appearing
not satisfies the requirement of
Reforms Act. The Land ‘i’1’ibL:I1a’xi4_has&’p;:t3per13sV *’
the materials and has come to ébnfiiluvsiofg that the
petitioner has failed to pA::.¢§e lfijsi.i:{é11z_a_1.:ie::5.é in respect of the
landsin questicxn. ‘
8. of the View that the
Tribuna} hagpasseq%’gMjk1véas§ned order and it do not cans for
any mterrmme mils wriijjetiuon. Writ Petition fails and it
accormay Vséismisséki;