High Court Karnataka High Court

K H Khan S/O N A Khan vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 15 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
K H Khan S/O N A Khan vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 15 February, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAEA,    _

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF EERR;.;ARY:;.2D.i:0..A Z  "
PRESENT  ' u  V
THE HONBLE MR. JUST1_QE   
THE 1--1ON'I3LE MR. 'A.'N':.KzENUCOPALACOWDA

WA. No. 3-3.45.'OE 2UQ5'{.LR)7--~
BETwEEN:- '  " 1 , 
S/O. NA. KHA-N,, ' .   ,-
AGED A13OD,.,%"*r5:.;YEARS,,_"- *  
R/AT NO.  SHARIFB' ROAD,
BASAvjANAOUD1;'-._, " , '  -- -
BANGALORE m.56Dj~0,04  

 -   ,_  APPELLANT
(BY SR3  SPEAS-HIDHARA, ADVOCATE
FOR M/u,S.KES'J1_f & CC-., ADVOCATES)

     

 .1_   

.  REP."B_Y5I'i'S SECRETARY,
 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA.
BANGALORE -- 560 001.

-- ET}-IE LAND TRIBUNAL,
REP, BY ITS SECRETARY.
ANEKAL TALUK.

3 . ALLALAPPA.

S/ O. LATE ALLALLI GULLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

%/



6.

7'
.

R/AT THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI VHLLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK.

MADDURAMMA.
W/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

R/AT THIRUMAGONDANAHALLIVILLAOEV;-~..,.  F"

ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TAJ,.L.IE_{'.' 

YELLAPPA,   *
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN}. 
R/A. SOLUR VILLAGE. * ' '

(MEMBER OF THE ANEKALTALUK A 

LAND TRIBUNAL}   ..
BANGALORE DISTfZI_C'f.  *  '

CHINNAPPA.      -
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ' 1. _  '
S/O. LATEQIELLAPPA.  ' '

ANER;xLE'APRAI".,__ "

AGED AEODT 35 YEARS.f 
s/O;-EAfrE GULIARPA,

M'UN:YARRAfj   _
AGED 'ABOUT 45 YE, '
S/O. LATE 

» -YELLAPPA,  . EEEEE 14 A
' * AGEDVVABOUT 50 YEARS,
V' » _ VS/,   KAVERAPPA.

"..._4AMUP§'i'KAV§.E'RV. APPA
 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
* s/O. LATE KAVERAPPA

:  CHENNAPPA, O
"AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

 "AS/O. LATE KAVERAPPA.

RV



I2. ANAKALLAPPA.
I AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KUNTA MUNIYAPPA,

13. VENKATASWAMY,   
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,   
S/O. LATE KUNTA MUNIYAPPA,  '

14. SATISH,  
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,   _
S / O. LATE KUNTA MUNIYAREA, *

RSTO R14 ARE 0. _  .   
R /AT THIRUMAGOND-ONAHALLI..VII;:Ar3E,
ATTIBELEI--I--OBLI,y"""'- "  1 .0 
  1  
BI0fl\JGALO'RI1§ DISTRICT.

     ImSPONDENTS
[BY SRI1'DV.vIJA*1'AI:_tII»IAB,_ 'Ac;A.__I«'OR R1 8: R2}
(BY SRI M1 R; ..v'1JAY'AI{U'ArIAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4}
(BY SR: [)._J. GOV{ND9ARAJLI_, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R14}
(R3 SERVED} .  
{R5 SERVIC E HEI.D""SUEE--I.c'IENTj

HIS VWRIT"API>EAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE

 KARIIA:_TA:~:A HIGSEOURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION

 'I~IO.49:2.v52/,200:2_ DATED 30/03/2005.

  is coming On for hearing this day,
SR'f:3_ED§IAR--~'RAO, J.. deiivered the following:

JUDGMENT

b’ H The learned Singie Judge in paras 5 & 6 of the order

V mIH1aS made the following 0bserva1;i0r1S:–

If

4

“5. In this View of the matter. the Cornpietent

Authority under the Act is directed to take…neces’saif,{&

action in this regard and confiscate th’e:”pro_pert”y V’

the State under the provisionssyof the_-Act” so for it ”

the share of the respondent

compliance report to this Coiirtdwjthin

the date of receipt 0_rder:V-,_Ti1;§–._/..;;’eputy”VV

Commissioner of Banga1ore:Di.strict”is:ldireciied to see
that necessary aetion by theucompetent
authority under KLRF Act and
submit cor1_iplia.nce’ * direicited above. The
Regisptlfig to .plaVce”‘ti;~,e: matter before the
Court yfurther orders in this

,re’ga_r_d;g.

_ 6.i’~”},U.itlit ytiheihabove said observation, direction
and liberty:jfi–eaVIi_ng«upon the right of the 40-2

_ resp”c.nd’entftoA*–.agi~tate her right before the Tribunal
and not “aCcep_ti.ng the sale made in favour of the 51″
iresphondent for the reasons stated supra by the 3″‘
this writ petition is dismissed as

by the petitioners.”

‘The material facts disclose that appellant herein is the

purchaser from tenant — respondent No. 12 ««~ Ankailappa on

Vb .,V_il?ifh0m the occupancy rights were conferred. The petitioners

in the Writ Petition had challenged the order of grant of

4/

6

in the enquiry. in that view, the appeal is partly aIl0wec;i’§””T:E-isif ;. A’

direction given to the Govermnent to submit ._

report is modified.

NM*