1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE 3 __ V V
Dated this the 1 1*" day of August, V is
BEFORE: _ &
mm Homnm MR JUSTICE D _ .
W:'itPe§_i§'gg; gyg. 1021W.§L"'-?Q08A'[E
§.Is:.1;w..§.z_..N
SRI. cm. THIPAIAH,
S/O LATE (3.13. ERE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, V
R/A GUDDADAMANE'ESTAT;E," ~ .;
ALDUR, CHZKMAG£.LU«R,'DIS'FRIGT--f
REP. BY HIS GENERA::;PQw.Ei2 _ .
0? A'I'I'ORNEY, ::p.JQY.THIRAIA'HT';--.L '
S/O (3.3. THIPA1A.H;»-. rj, «. '
AGED 46
R/A GuDn::ADAMAr3a: £»;s'rA'r--§;, _ --
ALSUR POST e-5?? 111.;-.__ '
CHIKMAGALURTALUBL' PE'm'IONER
{By sxi,.--. Maniiibhan. P.N., Adv.]
2 ~~~~
' ..7'1'»HE'TA'r1sII,,bAR,
..c~>' .. % :9 %
--- TALUK,
= Ac§«1IKMAr.:gA1_,vR DISTRICT.
COMMISSIONER,
CHIKMAGALUR DESFRICT,
A. CHIKMACIALUR.
V THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
} REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENI' OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILIDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001. RESPONDENTS
if a person who is in unauthorized
be evicted in a highhanded manner
_ anti””the..’ should be only in accordance with law;
H H ” the petitioner once earlier under a similar
.’ approached this court by filing WP No 3980
3
depressed classes and as such the land had also__ been
granted in their favour, but they could “if!
possession <1ue__t'n_various disputes etc. it it 3 is A
3. The petitioner appxfehendslij
order, the petitioner may 4′ *’
Without the Deputy
following due process etc.
4. Appearing for the N Manmohan,
learned urged that even
the Deputyii take the law into his
own A’ is in possession and
enjoyment of Ejuestion and this possession
te1(en_’atva$r’ witiiout following due procedure of
§/
–. may, it is not necessary for this court to
in which survey number and as to whether
< is in possession of a larger extent of iand
extent of Iand he had been granted. They are
matters which need be examined in a proceeding
4
of 2006, which came to be disposed of in terms offoz*(ier
dated 2 1-6-2006 [copy at Annexure-G to the
that notwithstanding such order, the .,
a highhanded manner initiated
petitioner without following due. etej7- i it
5. While a perusal of the passed
by this court in the __does riot reveal
anything in favour of of order at
Annexure-A directed against
the petifiozier apprehension of the
petitioneij is –‘ 3 as was observed by this
court in * of litigation by the very
Veihat extent of land is in possession of the