High Court Karnataka High Court

Hanumappa Bheemappa Pakked Since … vs Hanumappa Durgappa Barki Since … on 14 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Hanumappa Bheemappa Pakked Since … vs Hanumappa Durgappa Barki Since … on 14 October, 2008
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
1' '  3. V.  si?;1w§PPA

IN THE HIGH COURT 0:' KARNATAIQ
CIRCUIT BENCH AT nfianwm C N

Dated this the 14* day of   '% Z '§

BEP'OfiE

TI-IE I-ION'BLE mt .ms'r:CE_n   C

Writ Pemion No 3i;g317CCgr26e3?;LR1A[;
BETWEEN:   K « % 

HANUMAPPA'E3HEE§ECD.,j§'{ ms LES.' - * '

1.

HoNr¢AP}>;_s;.

sic) LATE’~-H§§NUMAi?’PA_’ ._ 1′
55mg, /o”I{AN:;A2aA<3A*i'f:.'I,,._
I~21_AvER1 ""{7C_; 5.; EDIVS1', .

2. NAGAPPA — _ ._
SfC)”i,A'”:”E :~§;=.NU.m::>’PA
53 YRS; Rfii) ¥ANsA;:ACATT1,

HAVER1 ‘1’~:;:_3g DIST.

‘ ” .. j _I_ 0 CLATE ._I_~iANUMAPPA
230′ 123, =R;’..o KANSARAGATTI,

– HA’JERI”‘;’Q 85 BEST’

4. B-.§iEEz’~2mPPA
~~f~3f€’» LATE HANUMA’?PA
smog DECEASED BY HES LR

A Sm Pm’moNER

HGNNAWWA

W/0 LATE HANUMAPPA

50 ms, Fifi) KANSARAGATPI,
HAVERE TQ 85 9:31:

AND

…–.–..m…….

DYAMOVVA
D/0 LATE HANUMAPPA

15 YRS, MINOR, R/BY ~
PETITIQNER N05,
R/O KANSARAGAWI,

HAVERI TQ 85 ms’:

HANUMAPPA
S/O BHEEMAPPA

32 Y1?S,MfNOR,R[E3Y
PETITIONER’ No.5,’ ._
R/O KANSARAGA”1″‘I’1′,’
HAVERI ‘H3 85 DEST. ‘-

for
r. 44 5; v_ by! L£i:r:_e:1If;atl1′ Adv)

H2′;NU.1\f;.Ai?3F52£.L¥Iji£’€§z25;’Pf3}s« BA fix;
SINCE mar: 3:3?-;:.~;23.L_.::–*-3′

AsHo §{,._.3%2.YRé:, ‘
we MEDLER}, ~

” j§.”AN’niBENNUR TALUK,
.. ___2:IA’:_zia§31«:I%. DIST. ***** ” ‘

‘ ” –DELY.5;’P§?A,
28 ms, R_!;’€x-MEDLERE,
‘RANEB.E–NN=UR’ TALUK,

” .._4’HAVVE-R; £>i’STRICT.

HGNNAPPA

, % 25 YRS, R/O MEDLERE,
V ‘EQEKNEBENNUR TALUK,
‘ HAVERE DISTRICT’.

LAND TRIBUNAL
HAVERI TALUK :35 DISTRICT,
BY ITS SECRETARY.

PETITIONERS

4. Appearing fer the petitioners, Sri
Rearmed counsel, would ef>_ ii’31ei’.,._ V
tribune} is against the evidenee “record;
simpiy brushed aside not ofal. ievivéieiieeiiibut also
documentary evideI1ee;’:«– before the
tribunal; that the orde:.ie_eeeeiieg e perverse erder
and ti1erefo;fe._’:re{:{£iii’es;to set

5. also submits that
the J_;h.ad been in possession and

eultivatieifef the even witheut any dispute from

‘ $346 0§iw’e::ds; that they have eorltinued to remain

VA date, but the resp0i1cient~1andlerd, who

in the village, had got manipulated the

i”..revenueH_i’;’eeerde only for a couple of years and the lane

has, without exeminirzg the legal effect of the

_e_[fxpiieeizts’ having been the tenants eariier and not having

V’ been termieated in accordance with law, simply gven

credence oniy to the revenue entries and decided the case

W’

support their 01511133 and if had Continued to 1*e1_1}_air1 in

possessian, that only furthjer fartifies that the -éwiiigtifiirxsrs

were aarliar in occupation and even oaths :, c:iay

as tenants, though the revexfme .€:n1.:–i_4t’i€:$ have’ ;

indicated otherwise. I find =

standing the test of imdér sjof thé»

Constitution of India. V

8. Accorciirlgly, the =’t>1fid;é3.’f.is’»’__quashed by issue

of writ of e::e1§*:i::-‘:é§i’ri tiéie remanded to tile

tI’§,b11I1€fi ‘»§?iE1’1 “d.ibecfi0n to the ‘tribunal 1:0 examizle

the case o?t’:he.Vpétj£io.11″e1″f_”_.for claiming tenancy on the basis

_ ‘cf ¢fi’e c:’t’, 1)s§r:icu}arly Lmcier Section 4 of the Act.

is alicwed. Rule mafia absolute.

Sd/-w
Judge

Y 4*p_i1<