High Court Karnataka High Court

M N Nagaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M N Nagaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
 V. A' Afijgifi V 

..i-

12: THE men mun? OF KARNATAKA,  _

DA'I'ED mxs THE ASH Dmf gig' .3U:+a'1:;; 2T§3{39"v:  _  "  k

I3B3Eé'(}RIé',¥---_ %
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT'1J C:3%RAMMoHAt€  %

WRIT P13rmfIoN No...§j:4 1% .2067 "(LB_;~ 2):"-5)

BETWEEN:
M.N.NAGARA.3~   2:  ~ _ 
S/O LATE    
AGED 4eY32m:;s,_. '' .   
R/O Bu:~:5VNKp:He;_;y1VLL,;xGy:--, ~  

TALuKv1K.R1.!éE:"fé£.--'V._ *A   . .
913?; MAN'!:YA._ '      PETITIONER'

(By Sri L.""R~5VJA, 1:§{;)V;}_  

» ,1» _ T.3§:.S§jA':'_E OF KARNATAKA
"   R.f5Ff'_R§€SEfiTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
' --._;RURg.I., DEVELGPMENT AND
 PAP$Cij{AYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
 M;gs.BUmt::1NG,
BAHGALQRE ~ 550 001.

°'_THE TALUKA EXECUTIVE OFFICER
' TALUKA PANCHAYAT,
K.R.PE'I'H,
§_)IS'l"RI(3'T' MAKE DYA.

3 SM"? JAYAMMA
W70 J IVANJEGOUDA, AGE: MAJOR,
R} O BUKANKERE VILLAGE,
M
J"



-2-

TALUK, K. RPETE,

MST; MANDYA.   

(By Sri B.J.SOMAYA.JI, ADV. FOR R2

SRI ¥{.V.NARASIMHAN, A}Z)V. FOR'  .;  " 7

THIS WRYF I~>ETm0N ;s:F:Lm"L:r§'i:>ER m;*§{:1§ES:'; 2 ;2::s "

Am) 22? 0? THE cores*r1Tmf:'..N 0?" INDIA V-.PR'AY'i'NG TO " '

QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER 3'1'. 5.2.';.€)0i"PA."Z_SSED BY
THE R2 VIDE ANNE3XURE--C AxsI,.:)_'GRaER  .1f7.;3:;2o96 iN
i\EO.APPEAL No.18?/200:;-03" PAS-SE-D'-~BY THE R2 vmfi
ANNEXUREJ7'.  ~ -   1  .A 

THES PETITION x:::)'M:fi§eG' 'm§§"»"'HEAR1NG THIS
DAY, 'mp; coggkmkaaw, T;---15a:"mLL<3*a11:§,:};

Tb;e..   by name Smtdayamma,

W/(;)_;fl'a¥,e Sfib'i}<§g{5£vd%§L, claims to be allotted site No.3

  X 40' in Sy.No.18O of Bukkankere an

_a}i'ci"..issued with a hakku patra of even date

  .  by the Tahsildar, K.R.P<et taluk. It is the

K V' ' ¥a'3£se;"tiT§$i1 of the petitioner that his mother died on

--'  {S1999 at Manciya supperted by the certificate of

"  dt. 3;'7.i2.1.99{4) Annexurér-B. It is the aliegatian of

the pctifioner that the Gram Panchayat of Btxkkankere,

M



...3...

by order (it. 5.2.2901 AImexure--C,  '

ailofinent, Without netioe be the 4§:;%_1:nee 2

premise that the pet:it.ioI}e1**'e   .'

undertaking that she £1ad  ebjeeiien   the " %

Katha and transfer  xi-»_1'A1_e  oi: the 31""
respondent. By the   was called in
question in    269 of the
   for short the 'Act'

before: me’ t;rie’Rr’iliage Panehayat aflotted
the sit e:i,1§ and issued a Hakku

patra, _Ane1″e:§1Ii’e-;I§). the said Appeal before the 2nd

r ‘res;-;?)eI1eie11t,,. the ‘petitioner obtained an order of stay

at the same time apprehending

dis.§5ss¢ss§e_:;e:; instituted 0.8.265/2806 before the Civil

‘~.-e. V-Judge” .{;__51′.{)I1}, K.R.Pet, ibr injunefien against the SM

it is the aliegation of the petitioner that the

_»v’._?,_'”5’i respondent Withetlt adclressing the pet:ifioner’s

V’ gievance as set out in the memorandum of appeal,

M

-5-

property in favour of the 3rd respende1}.%f.._’44’

registered msflnment tantamozmts ta stu§tj’fyi;1fzg§.A_T.”~ % T’ —

4. A examination ot’t13<i: ordtar d£}eS} L'

animate a consideration file fight "<if Egtatutoxy
provisions. Moreover!"-the :« the "pcV§t:itio1"1er's
mothar died in the yea; V1 Annexme-B,

was enough ":f'<}r i;he4"2§1¢'~."rs§,*p0nC1ent to have

securecfd' the t£j._"Q:iSt§<3I1:ain the iegaiity and
va}idit}?"0f:£hé a1V§<":g{::s}'T'cz;ji*::s§3:;1t extended by the mother of

the pe_titio£1erf_V'in.VEaxftézifof 3" respendem, Thfi order

" '-.imp1,igr;ed,'~-_i13. my "" 'Cénsidemd opinion, bristles with

z2§j:::_i 1'j.-3 unsustairlable.

resuit, the writ pfititicn is ailowed. The

‘A x V’ ..0rde:f 17.3.2006 Anrzexurt:-F of the 2114 respondent is

— qsgééhed and the prcmeedings remitted fior consideration

” after extending reasorzabie opportunity of hearing

to the parties concerned and pass ordars strictiy in

M

..6…

accordance with iaw and in the lighi: of the ”

madfi supra. .

in.