High Court Karnataka High Court

Mohd Mehtab vs Syed Ali on 23 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Mohd Mehtab vs Syed Ali on 23 July, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCIJTT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED 7+-as THE. 23*" DAY OF JULY 2008  

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PAfjL if    %
wmr PETITION NO. sostazaoel

BEYWEENI

MOHDMEHTAE

SID MOHD.lSMAiL MAZKURI
AGED 50 YEARS,

OCC: MUZKURI. CHITGUPPA
YQ. HUMNABADI, D¥ST:Bl£'iAR;~ '_

{av SR£.S.S.SAJJAN suswfrf  . V_

AND

1.

55¢

sveo ALi~vSi(§-$YED izgasétga «-- 1' 

NEELKHEW'JALEfN3-Ef'fi5'YEARS'," '  ' 

oc:c:AsR:L*L:.Tui2g:,  _ .

svsp MEHTAB Ausro SYEE3 
RAHEEM NEELKHETWALE, '
AGE: GUYEARS, .  
 AGRWULTURE, :

j ' 'mp MQHAM§}iED------9.--L '
- _ " sro=svEo~seAHEEM NEELKHETWALE.
~ _Ae.§; '58*.(lf:'AR$, occ: AG-R¥CUL'¥'URE,

 s?E:j':3MAii,' ALI S10 SYED RAHEEM
'NEELKHETWALE, AGE: 49 YEARS,
 r%(3E¥CUL7URE.

svEt3:.vc>usuF ALI sto svsn vouuus

 ..  AGE:'39YEARS,OCC;AGR|CUi_TURE,

_ fives MUJEE ALI SIG SYED YOUNU8
AGE: 37 YEARS. occ: Aeaicununa,

SYED MAIN $0 SYED YOUNUS
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

 

'    'V .  .:__PET¥T¥ONER



2

8. SYED SABI ALI SIC) SYED UQUNUS
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGMCULTURE,

ALL RIO CHITGUPPA
TC}. HUMNABAD, D!ST.B!DAR,

¥2ESi5'§)..h_I_'£'")§'£;Vt'$i'f<$D. V' " A. V.

(SR|.MOHD.Si-IAFIUDDIN FGR R2, 3, 5-8
R1 8: 1% SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

mus war: PETITION as FILED U¥~'i'£.')E}§..A.A!$.R;I'iCidE£°3A"I¢*.?'t,3 ANt§:"2:::xfDs

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ?R_AYING*--TO=--SET As'sD£1*HE "oRDERa
DATED 15.3.2303 PASED IN D.s.NDjss on 1993 E3'! "§'H'E--v..A£}'3L.CiVi*L.. '

JUDGE (..IR.DN.} HUMNABAD, vID.*:-:1'ANN9<uDE-'E?.d'AND:,TD REJECT
|.A.N€).XIV DATED 17.2.2006 FILED BY 'ms Resporemms we xv: RULE 1
s. 6 RM! SEC151 OF c, Ah£Dd.--.-'3'r"-.I(3'.--162»..C}F EVi{}E,NC.E ACT, VIDE
ANNEXURE-C. N    D 

mus wan' PETITIDD Domizué' fDN_ :=DjR...r$R;"e'.LIM:NARY HEARING
IN *3' GROUP, 11-us' DAY, ma V_c;ouRI_MgsDE 'THE*~F§)£;LOWING:

   D   
%be;n;gf'Ddg¢"g:d:%ev§d by the order dated 15"'
March 20%   'O.S.ND.1%1998 on
the file of me l"'ea;fr:s<i    (Junior Divison),
Husftsngbadg pr¢saDt'sd..tt1D insmnt writ petifion.

 .:VThaAt'8;$P§3F'1§iv&!jtsIplainfifis flied fine application

  and 6 read wiflw Section 151

  placing':__A'1~re!iance under Section 162 of the

V'   seeking a direcfion, directing the petitioner

 to§rcddc:é original '0 Form, dated 27.10.1977, alleged to



3

have been issued by the Tahsilder, Humnabad, in respect

of land bearing Sy.No.'l9OI'l corresponding"

Sy.No.353 situate at Chitguppa \/illage.__;'_:"""'l«'l*_::ej:

application filed by the respondents[plain&fi;§.:fi;d"oome  

for consideration before the l

2006. The Trial Court ar:§rrrrlhaarsnn§%

msigning valid reaeorrs allowed

l.A.No.XlV, directing original ‘0

Form withio of the said order.

Being order passed by the
Trial .1533 petitioner has presented
the

“31 ‘ll heard learned counsel appearing for

‘pellilziorrerjvj4v’S_rl.S.S.Sojjan Shetty and learned counsel

__for”reapondents 2, 3, 5 to 8. The respondents

1 4 aerved and unrepresented.

AA After careful perusal of the impugned order,

arsed by the Trial Court on l.A.)(lV in O.S.No.’l68l’l998,

I do not find any error, mgchlees any material irregularity,

4

as such, committw in allowing flue application filed by the
respondentslplaintiffs- The Trial Caurt after hearitfigbom

the sidfi, with referance tea the relevant matgriaxl’

on file, has rightly allowed the appiicaiiergfiyv :

vaiid reasons in para–6 of £136 ‘

interference by this counjjisygot jfistifiablevjfinad

good grounds, as p_ééti1:ioner to
entertain tha instanf the instant writ
petition meg: by the as devoid of
merits, to redress his
grie\{aitxt:ae$é;fIg.c:;r;$::f§f?$L9 Forum, if he is so

Sd/-

Iudge