Jayaram Hatwar vs Chandu Devadiga on 31 July, 2008

E

IN THE H¥GH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE'

DATED THIS THE 3131' I}AY or JULY 20{)8w_ 7  

PR ESENT:

THE HGNBLE MRS.JUS'I'iC1E MANJIELA    

AND  . "

THE HOIWBLE MR.JUS'}'ICE K.N.KEsH.AvANARg§';rg39:AW;,,HT

w.A.m3.2e5g i"2Qt1~.7_(KLRA)_ V _ T'
BETWEEN:  '

1 JAYARAM HATWAR   _
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS  --
R/AT BEEJADS, KOTEVSHEVARALV
I{UNDA¥'UR'TA£;UK[ * -  

2 VAADIRAJA'-"£iIAT1VAR_§,__ « '
AGE!) 5.3031' '4é2.YE=AR-S, 
R/AT BEEJADI, .\  '
KGTESH~WARA,:_ j '
§<f;{i?~5DAPUR %mLUK'

 é; 'A _ "NixR';ix*5.a;I'e"A MURTHY,

 MAJ_OR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
 .;-RfAT"5§;.*3dA.?3I, KOTESBWARA
 f<UNDAfS-UR TALUK. .. APPELLANTS

 (I3y M13; 'i}M§':5EvA:AH 82; ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)

   CHANDU

--_ _ W/O LATE {ZHANDU DEVADIGA
V "AGE: MAJOR

3  "2. SMT. KANAKA

D/O LATE CHANDU SEVADIGA
AGED MAJOR



R)

3. SMT. LAXML
D,' O LATE CHANDU DEVADIGA
AGED MAJOR

4. SMT.GIRIJA
D/O LATE CHANDU DEVADIGA
AGED MAJOR

5. KRISHNA  
s/<3 LATE CHANDU DEVADIGA 
AGED MAJOR  '

5. T.Gov§NDA   _  14
3/0 LATE CHANDU DEVADI(}.Af'» 
AGED MAJOR V H" ._ T '

7. T. GANESH      
S/O LATE:.<:§~2.aN:}.:;. DE__vA'D.;GA V
AGED MAJOR:    

8. T.sU£:V13A.;m~% --".V--~.__ *A   M .
S/O mTE..'§:LVR '1jALUQ',~m,KsH:NA KANNADA

  ;$$'§'AT"£3_V C}? 'KA'Ri\EATAi{A

 13.TEr~?A;<z'm'EN'T'.s)P REVENUE
'BY-ITS SECRETARY,
Vi-£)HAN;A.SOUE)!~IA,
BAN {}ALORE» 1

 T10.  LAND TRIBUNAL
 _ '  *  KUNDAPURA

BY ITS SECREARY KUNDAPURA.
..RESPONDEN'I'S

 mom;

 

SINCE THE 339 AND 475 RESPONDENT IN

W.P.NQ.37725/2000 ARE NO MORE OTHER

9V

4
the application of the applicant. The said order Vt”-as

qzrestioned by Clhandu Devadiga before this Court.’

present Writ Petitierz. The Writ Petitioner it

thereafter his Wife and ehileiren ‘ err reejor-‘:.i_ and

pursued the matter. By order

Single Judge has quashed the ofifltlie’ ‘arid
remanded the matter Vie… ‘VT-»riburrei”*Afor’: fresh
enquiry with a direction {,5 ticgziisméere available

or: record and a.1Sev–._te to lead fresh

evidence?”‘if’é:1y,;.:ii, V

3. Itie the «the learned counsel for the

appellant iar1de”vare:iI’unja iands and therefere the

it Vapfglie-‘;air1ti,.Aeer2:ret c§eiru”‘eny tenancy rights over the same.

was raised before the iearned Single

‘ ~3ud’ge_iéi1Isc:p the matter is remanded to the Tribunal

fz’es1*i_erL1quiry, no prejudice would be caused to the

afipetieirit as all these cententiees are required to be

—-.”V’eon’eideree¥ by the Tribunal. He can urge all the

ie-onterztiexxs available to him.

W

4. Under these circumstances, we see no ..1’i’.n’€3’1′”i’.Z_ ‘I’1V]:I

this appeal.

sal-

1231*