B K Munivenkataswamappa S/L … vs State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA'1'AKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 5"' day sf August, 2898

Before

my HUMBLE ma JUSHCE HULUVADI G 

W1/'£tPfliau 41705 / 2002 (LR)

B Kmmivenkataawmnaqapa -- sine: and T .. 3 '

1 Smt P Jayalaksluamnma, 73  

Wis lane Munivmka1>aswanzapp'a.._L> "' '
2 smtBMRama,s2ym.--_ "
3 B M Rama}, so yrs '

BM  4é3;~:s-- " 'V
BE  
13 M Rg£'na,V_'&ayra ' ' '
if  age swam'  Mmvmn 
1:nd'.=nt: 1-/3 mydciaballaput and alsoat# 1300

 " = 32"9.4Cméa, 4"t:tAf.xs.nfia'¢'§V is found in the are an 1914. Em afier

V .V fine. ""¥maea in am Tribtmai, the 0:66? mm is am: a

Instspponofhcrmgtmnaleaxwdomnuelhmmfiedlxponm

 oftlfm Court 'm MB Name. Salty V: Land mama.

J/%



admission on the pm of the rmondm to the «flan!  _

question is in possession and cuitivason ems petifionag,   A 

ma Court in WA 29.26 & 292?/26'#4:::'decided  '22fs.i"c;%sT.§ 14 R
Tieeperunnd Vs .% of   the an]
evidence oftbe witnesses   m finding so
recorded would  and cultivation of
the subject   rm Tribmal has
smpsiedly   date, the applicants
were in    ufthc subject lands and

notmelmdbmnem. V  
  relied on the decision '21

 - ._  Tiibuud, Sbinaogu ~-- 1939 (1) IL} 9,47 -
 W,SA". I33 $0' cuties in mhanis have finpfive eviclemiaty

  is of the View mat the other internals' placed

j befmgit fl.11§:circuzmtaaces of the case are szficient to displace fine

  " *  from the entries in the pahanis, the Tubman!' can give a



It is also his submission mm the peiiticmas 
industry at Bangalore aim long. Even prior to the   "
not cuitivating me and in question.    V'

is no em)! or illegality' Gfllmmtted' by the   ~    

impugned otder.

In the imam case,    has conferred
occupmy rigxis on this    evidence of the
5Pi3!ica:1t and   mamas produced
in the case    shaw me name of B K
Mmwem    9-'and the name of one Balauj in
Column     1959-79 the cultivation '3 shown

as 'ovgsgf' and f;>r"»th_éVy':¢ars l9'.}'0-71 to 1973-74, it is shown as 'khati'

  docui was diwed, it was mfermd to the

dDefit3jrC9na1fi$it;aa1'mfin'nishampm1aswgu(hflxea1u£csh1$eRTC

 the petitionexs are aarthenficatnd or not Acoorfitgly. the

   %lem Rm-al Disirict has mm 3 taper! to

 reeordsavaa1abl:' mditisabonot

 hmdedovutotiremfimfies. Indxcckcmnatmcegflwabaenceofamiea

h1ih¢RTCz~egisterastofl1enamcsa'thepe£ifime:siin'owaadoxifion

the veracity ofthose documents. 



G11 goingthzougl the order ofthe Lam Tribmd, 

Tribunal has verified an the doeummits produced and has gtvm'  V a:mn:g  u'   '

ms; for the year 1974 the RTC 

applicant': grfifatharasbemfi in   '     " "

evidence of the applicant md a:__ Eat; the = "

xmpondent was in     prior to
1.3.3974 and it is a mmeé   occupancy
xiglis on flu: mapondam.   ammo: of the
     the aeimogm land
owner, he Ems   of occupamy rights, there

is no    

I;-gwiew om   Bunch of fix Court in an

   001$  with the evidence ofthe naigabatm g ml

   the version of are appficamirespondent to the

efieci which om weighs the evidence ofthc

the fan: me documents produced by me gamma: were

fiiffcfijfigiwwptablemmcofijnmofflmmmemcnafmndmflnRTC

the revenue orifice as is also the repmwme Deputy

Iamafthcviewflut the Trihmai has eometoajut

conc!nsionthmason1.3.1974mdp:iorfl1ereto,m3″reapondeatwas’m
yr/~

pouassiaa md cultivafion of the iami ‘nu quefion and acconfmgiy, ”

eafifledfargraaiofoccxnmmyrighis.

Idon¢:tfi1:dauuyxne:it’n1thcccatontiou;of&e’1A:i¢:t§n§’%.’~ ”

isaccordingly,¢§mnkased.