A L Yellappa vs Huchamma @ Padmavathamma on 1 September, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA;Ci§{E_V'
DATED THIS THE 0161' DAY OF SEPTEMBE_R§:é20:§39    .
BEFORE   'L V V. %'
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE }~I.I\;T.' 

w.P.No.22685g2b02  * ,

 

4! (mm: ch'; U246

BETWEEN:       Ciru?'-'.1.'vQ«' CW'
  '   * :§E".£2..3\;o{°°i

ALYELLAPPA     _

s/0 LATE KULLAPPA  " 3  Q3v"}?'7"*"3")
AGEDABoUT23Y'EéXRs    

R/A AMRUTHAHAEL3JVIIJ,AGE.._  

BANGALORE.  '
B_ANGA'LOR__E     
 ' ..PETITIONER

(By Sri_K.S.N}XGARA,}A RA_0',*Ai>v.)

1; A'SMT.HHC:HAMMA @ PADMAVATHAMMA

W/O4..LATI::'N,S~;BHASKAR RAO,

 ' T_AGED ABQUT 90 YEARS
  -- --. _ "R./ALBESTARABEEDI
'~.f"1'ELA}IANKA, BANGALORE64.

 V  2, ; LAND TRIBUNAL,
» " "BY ITS SECRETARY,
" BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

fufk'
W



YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE-64.

3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,

VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-1.

4. B.R.SAINATH

s/0 B.P.R.AIAGOPALA SHETTY " ~

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
N0312, R.M_V.EXTENSION,
BANGALORE-20. 

5. B.V.SAMPATH V
s/0 LATE VALAPPA % 
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS . '-

R/A .,     '

BEGUR,HO"BLI,A.%T,f. M

BANGAl.ORE-- ' %

BANGALORE; _

6. B.V.}AYAI{A1\.§ REDD§.?'

 V.  S/O_Lf§.VTE__V'E1\IKA'1'}LPP.A REDDY

AGED AB£f)I_T_T'5_5 YEARS

  R::Af
"xrAR1iHUR"IioBLIv

PANf1*HU12_ .1>L,"T;;'1"',
BANGALORE "SOUTH TALUK

 - ..   BANGALVQARE,

..RESPONDENTS

'A "j -.  Sri R.B.SATYANARAYAN SINGH, HCGP FOR R2--3
 Sri VSRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, ADV. FOR INDUS LAW FOR R5--6)

 



This writ petition filed under Articles 226 8:; 2247..Vof,_:the

Constitution of India praying to quash the order of Land 
dated 21.5.2002 pertaining to the land bearing Sy.No}29 _S'fi.'a;'.:i5."1l:P.V(:.-.'.["'-7 *

at Amruthahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore V_NQrtii.fiTalu1<,' "

Bangalore to_ the extent of 2 Acres 20 Gunt'as--whi:h  pr'o'dulL1_:éf  1 

In this writ petition Atheipetitioliier for a writ in
the nature ofeertiiorariglpto .c;;iiJ.as€l?1. 21.5.2002 in Case
No.746   passed by the Land
 do

2'; The sulbj-epetl matter of this writ petition is 2 Acres 20

 Gtiiitas  Sy.No.29 of Arnruthahalli village, Bangalore

NorthllTalnie.fg lfiespondent No.1 was the owner of the lands in

V.,question_a'nd she sold the same in favour of respondent no.4.

 g.l'In'2turi1 respondent no.4 sold the land in question in favour of

  respondents 5 and 6.

yr"



3. It is the case of the petitioner that his father Kullappa

was in possession of the iand in question as tenant. 

extracts from the year 1966~»67 to 1971-72 in resp-eezt  

in question were in the name of Kuliajipa; «K:s.1IappaV:di.edvv

year 1972. After the demise of qI€.u1Iap;45a«,A :r5etitioner..bevi'nig thre.s'on'* -'

continued in possession and enjuoyrnent ofiands in} question.
Though the petitioner coniinu'ed  posjsression of the lands in
question as a tenant, hisflnarne 'Wa's._not entered in the RTC.
Aggrie\zed"svb3t.V'thisa;set ofqthe respoiidents in not entering the
petitionuefsi narne  extracts he approached the

jurisdictionai'Tahsildarin  No.1962/82-83 requesting to enter

iiisisdi The rehsiisier vide order dated 4.3.1983 directed to

 the petitioner in the RTC. This order of the

'V Tahsiildarq dated 4.3.1983 came to be questioned before the

3' }ii\q,ssiis*t_ant Commissioner in Appeal No.20/83-84 and the same

"  eeme to be dismissed vide order dated 19.3.1984 confirming the

order of Tahsildar. Further the second appeai flied by the first

rs:
s'f°';2;'V



cultivating the lands in question. It is not in dispute that in the

year 1972 petitioner's father Kullappa died. 

the RTC extracts reflect as blanl<..:TheéordervVl'ofl--l;'1fahsilldari',atl'

Annexure-B, the order of Assistant"--_Conr1nriissioner "

Annexure--C and the order   as per
Annexurewl) makes it'   naihellicame to be
entered in the ETC e)éure.--B, C and D specifies the entry of petitioner's name in

 th"e,RTC extracts. The Tribunal committed mistake in not

considering the fact that under what circumstances the name of

the petitioner was not entered in the RTC extracts during the

wheat'



order is liable to be quashed. For the reasons stated above, the

following:

ORDER

i) Writ petition is hereby allovlfed.

ii) The impugned ordef passed by the

Land Tribunal,_AE.angalv0fe_l’Nbrth Taluk, is hereby
ques}1ed. ‘

iii) “T’i_1e1′:na:tte1*.:_js__”remanded ‘to the Land Tribunal for

‘ 4’ accordance with law, after
providing and opportunity to both the parties.

.. &0rdelred'”aecordingly.

3d/*5”

Fudge