High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Chandrakant Shrinivas Majali vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandrakant Shrinivas Majali vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
' r
'4.

'IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALCJRE' 

Dated this the 7".' day-ormarcn, 2003 ~

I Before

my HUMBLE MR JUSTICE;  as   & fi V   

uni... g

Sri Ciiandrakant S'mfini-was rviajaii. 7'6 5,--:5.  _ ~ ._
R10 Anagol Main Road, Anagolghéial

Belgmmi '   "

Now rfa-# 2, Tapi Shivali Nagar " .

Patham Park," Ambmmth {East}  H V'

Th_ane-District 42; 

jl
n

.,yn

_Petit_i_om:r

Staff: Of , V':iy. 
Reyenuya Deparhmcitt, 'M S'---.13uik1i11g
Dr Ambedkar Roazi, Hmzgaiore 1

I.    

.  " -.Asa1;1_§:t'an§«|nCJ:§5n1missioner, Chikodi
.= EMC, Chikodi. ' %
Fqi  Appayya Rewade

 =  4_ appayya Rewadi

V ' 'I  Rajaram Appayya -Rewadle



8 S11 B-,_aw,nt _ _ppsyya R,,wadc
9 Sent Gemaue: Ate S..a.-'-..':ar "ewade

1.,...1-,... n ........1..
Ilfllllifll IKUWIIUU

hi
C5
GD
-1
DD
9-
=

id
C
_I
:15

5-10 AH are ‘Rio Yasamba Vest, C”nii<odi:j; _
Belgaum A' '- _Respqncie_t:ts

(By Sri Nadiga Shivanandappa, GP t'of_State)

"swing ta quash annex-are A 9 –!l=e.eré;er i:§.f'..*':e"L:-en'. 'I,':~ibu.-ea}, Chikefi.

This Writ Petition Vis'~~fi1ea1~"i;§id¢;%Mj'm§£.s225/227 Vef Htxhe Constitution

111.’! _ -_,.,

–nu,-,,, 4 f’I_.l.LL:_._ – .. .;’.~_
10.18 Wfli 1′ 11 II UUHIIIIV {Hi

the following: .

E?-‘«r

?etiti_oneftlias.ssi:glxt«fer.iss:1aI).ee of a mandamus to the 1″ respondent
to constititte “a:_Land_ fifll quorum to hear the tenancy issue in

/SPJ106 ; – ‘-annexure A and to issue a mandamus to the

,, _ gesfinndents nmo dislnifse the compenation amount in reseet of Sy.No.33/1B

situate at Chikkodi Village till the disposal of tenancy

issue,

“‘_ s – .

a Heard the eau1″”l 1′”r fie “”ti€i6£’.ei” and tue …..ve:’nr~..en. Pleeder

‘tgiofiee to respondents 5-16 is dispensed With.

“K//’

j

tiiii. ;.:ana ‘-owfleti by

one Kiishnaji Iviajaii and Srinivas iviajaii and fi1ey.’rvere:ha1ring ‘equal half

share each. According to the petitionerahis tfetherufltfiniiras M33311 owgrgts

possession of 6.19 acres as ownerV.*tnt1_.cultiiia-ting the (fine
Marthand Apuli and others had filed 7_ seeltiitg’A_VforV’:occtipancy rights in
respect of S3/.No.33/1B vrrieasurinfi “l”tibunal granted

occupancy rights in his favour filed WP 4161/1983

. and this Court trensienied to’«!hc”ll§a:Id__l§.e1hrrns Appellate Authority

and thereafiehlw file. caitte’V”‘tnVmbe\ddisrnised on 31.8.1989. Being

remand, pe”tioner-” ‘d received.._t~iotice from the Land Tribunai to appear fixing

» date o’n:1o.7,§2oos. However, according to the petitioner,-during

cf theinatter before the Ttilnmal, the 3″‘ respondent had acquired

llllulneliatid also after complying with the formalities, award is

also”pass:ed mid the amount is lying in the office of the Land Acquisition

Cttficer. his/Ihleanwhile, petitioner has challenged the order of the Land Tribunal

l occupancy rights which is pending before the Tribunal for disposal.

W

It is submitted by the petitioner’s counsel the. _-. he b.,sés_:ef’tt:e gent

order made in _avou_r ,1’ he respondents, i. me a.*r:””‘.=fi§__ is ‘ Witt’ or
dasvursed to them, at wit} lead to 1′-“-dsh’p t” “‘e partiesasaci.si:nuitan’cousljr,”he

he” ciso sou”‘t fr expediting the proceedings ibefofite the.TtibunaI.”~.s is f

Pursuant to the order passed’v”t’i:e:_tVT/.V”:t.he Land V. .'{_icduisi.ti¥;)nVVVOiIicer on
18.10.1978 itself, it is seen be to the land
owner as the land in question of tenancy and was
pending disposa1§.mferst theiudpphrxtshut-.«a1.~«..it ‘is static’ noted, unless the Land
Acquisition irom the Tribunal, he cannot
disburse £5′ laitd’otvner;’ That apart, after remand -3; this con…
to the Tribunalphforv disposal, L. ..ppears t..e rdemhers h’-ve “rt
been nnointeflp dd of Member” 5″‘-ag -“paired, the Land

. r*£.,uaial wit! not be a *-osit'”ii ‘” miiction and adjudicate the matter.

A :i}i5<.sjrctttt1ittances, it is for the respondent authorities to appoint the

Mernhem already appointed so as to constitute a full quorum and

u ' — .. : ''t1tereat'ter;' étis for the Tribunal to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

Further, it is needless to say that in view of the order passed by the

Land Acquisition Officer to disburse the amount in favour of the owner, till the

Wlfeor

tenancy issue is decifrd by the 1.41' M

said amount may not be disbursed.

With the above observation, petition is d>is’p’c.ae«_d”of.. _;< V