High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri K Ramakrishna Putturaya vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri K Ramakrishna Putturaya vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 3"' DAY OF DECEMBER 2oTD9~%TjkLDT 

PRESENT

TI-IE HON'BLE MR. 13.13. DINAKAR_AN_._CHI1§F'§I't?STiCE:V«V  

AND _ . .
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1CD'  
WRIT APPEAL NO.:1_713/26C}8_ (K_LR%4TRR/sum
BETWEEN: *  *  1. . 

Sri K.Ramakrishna Putturayag   V
S / 0 Late Vasudeva _Pu'ttL1_'raye5.._

Aged about 7 8 yearsv  . .

Resident of "Kan<€:ha:};'agaf£ga
Kadri Temple Road,  1', »
Mangalore, D.'KL"D,iS§flCiu.¥1j  "

 T      -- . ...Appe-llant
(By Sn' B.M.Kr_ishna Bha_f;;D.AdyOTc.ai¢_}

AND:

1%» - Siatfl wfiartaataka'  «  ..... 1"V
 D By SeC1"etzizf'y ti) A.{}0vemmen.t
"Revef1--T.1e DVepa1ftment
M,__S'.'Bu1'1d.;I':g, '/idhggna Souciha
Bahgaigére  . 00,1'.

V  The AD.sistaVT1.t'CDmmissi0ner
..  . ,. , Puttur Sub--1'1)ivisior1
 3 PL1tt1l?,_ ELK". Dlstnct 574 201.

 " «. .  VT'ah:§1idar, Puttur Taluk

  ' V . V ' 'V (I3j,r:Si'1 "B.Veerappa, AGA} /wwmfi'

"Putt'1;1r, D.K.District. *' ... Respondents

5' 
. \\_"fi:?"" 
aifi'  --



-2-

This Writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the writ
petition No.11841/08 dated 22.9.2008.

This writ petition coming up for preliminary hearing on this
day, the Court delivered the following-

JUDGMENT

[Delivered by P.D.Dinakaran, OJ.)

Aggrieved by the order dated 22″?’ Septemher,.A’_2’Q08:::in .c

Petition No.11841/2008 turning down the redpuestipoi”

for a direction to respondentsr’-2′ and_”3 to his

representation dated 791 July 2008 the’&VpeVtiti.oner’s land
located in Sy.No.3/213 of Aryappu _Puttur Dakshina

Kannada ground’ the petitioner has to
approach the._competentV’~ seeking a declaration that he
is the owner ofltllacrel in the said survey number, the

unsuccessful petitioner filed this writ appeal.

Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the

Vpetitionerand. the;-leained Government Advocate appearing for the

_, jrespondentav _ 3

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner. there is no
dispute to the extent of 1 acre 28 cents located at Sy.No3.}’_2_B’–vfor

which he is seeking to fix boundaries.

4. in that View of the niatter.’J»stiffice’*«.it -:

respondents-2 and 3 to consider the, r”epresent’ation” of&.”the’i.g

petitioner dated 71″ July 2008 to sui~x}fey. and i°LX_Vtl1e.’Vbot;:ndaries of V

Sy.No.3 / 2b based on the revenue reoordisé a:r1d_greiei}ant ‘title deeds,
after giving statutory notice’ to land owners,
within a period of of a copy of
this order. “‘of::.the learned Single Judge
dated 22*” Septe1nb~er isgigiiodifiediitollthe above extent.

The appevaiisgorderedaceordingly.

Sd/-

Chief Iustice

as/e
JUDGE

” «jridex: “Yes/l.\Io
‘a.Veb.. Host: Yes /No
“-._Ia