yr" 1.0
A be "9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE' { .
Dated this the 20"' day of March, 2008 __ '
Before
ms HON'BLE MR Jvsnczé H lEAMESfi' " _
WritPetitian 3103 /étmll (Lfilllll 1
Between.-
Sri V R Piuappa, 73 yrs
S/o late Rangappa, R/o I Ward". _
Vapasandra Village
Chikkaballaput TalukA& District. _ ' --. A ' = ' Petitioner
(By SriACBal3?'é5$s':tl;:i*J.')
And: I 2 I l
1. Séfilte dvf:---- iia'_'Secre!§1lV'§
Résvenue Soudha
Batigalore 1 ' " "
2. Land Tfitsuxgial, Chikliabéflapur Taluk
V, ._§.EBy the Taltsildmf A
V ., G'vE1VT;l.!l_ill.'fl'd8ppfl -- since dead by 1.115
A Sri VG ffénaktesh
Snhivasa
E5'
.* s 4_ SITG N Narayanaswamy
V l " All are children of late G Nanjunclappa
And r/o Vapasandra Village
Chikkaballapur Taluk & District Respondents
V (By Sn’ Nadiga Shivanandappa, GP for R1-2)
38″”
This Writ Petition is filed under Art.226/227 of theV.Vt_3’onetitution
praying to quash the order dated 3.7.1979 — annexure E by Land Tribtmal,
Chikkabellapur. 5″ V’
This Writ Petition coming on for Prl. ljlearing this’ rnade it
the following:
onnniny ” it
Government Pleader to take noticeior 1″ ~?:”i”_i’ireiipoit~;lent. Notice to
other respondentsis dispensedivntith. _ it it
Petitioner; for of the Land Tribunal,
Clark’ kaballaptiriidatetifi.ii;..197’9§ff.– V V
‘ nieasuring about 17 guntas situate at
Vapasandraiiliillage -Chikkabiailapur is claimed to be the ancestral property
V. ‘_ of titeonpetitioner be’i’eng_i_.ng,*.’o his grand mother Agasara Dyavamma. On the
‘ and noeveilpaney rights has been granted in favour of the respondents
ii without toitlie petitioner and the order has been passed against a dead
person, lF§titi’oiier is before this Court assailing the said order as illegal.
i ~ From a perusal of the order, as submitted by the Government Pleader, it
” is seen the only daughter of the original land owner Dyavamma viz., Ramakka
has appeared before the Land Tribunal and has given a statement regarding
At’
tenancy of the respondents. Although the name of Dyavamma iS’_ii(iiI_ deleted
but on such appearance of Ramakka, daughter of the land…oiwr1er.e:i’th:ere’ is
sufficient representation. In the circumstances, the say ofthe» ‘petifioherdilat
the order has been passed against a deadjpeisen. and withofifnotice tojthe T.
petitioner does not hold any water. V This to ‘Vié.ax-gwbeeh
issued with notice and she appeared a statement.’
In that view of the matter, the petitione-rxh’as. rie.._iocua Standi challenge the
order. More over, the order of theygar 1979. The petition
suffers from delay and laches:to’o.”.– in the petition.
Petition is aecéirdingiy,’*a dismissed.
Sdf~
“1
Judge