.. 1 ..
IN THE HIGH (3(')UR'I' OF KA' ' R NATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED 'i'HI'S 'i'}*:l1":"} 31"?' DAY OF NOVEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HGNBLE MR.JUS'i'iCE RAVI MA.¥§:i_E5=ATH T
wxelg» yE*1'1\f1oN N0.ia11?8 ?{iGA4~fl»,BgR.E*;~g;i "
Bl:§"l'WEEN I
Sm1':,.Lingamma,
W/0 Siddaiingaiah, ,
Aged about 68 years,'
Resiéing at Kootagal " V ' .
Viilage and P0st;_._ _ '
Kczotagai Hob1i.,--_ V
' ~ . _
Bangalpre 1~2:ura.1 __ --
= . . . .P;&:*1"*1':':oNi::1e
(BY: s':'v1A'ré1'HA'R' Ad, AL)VOCA'i'E.)
___ I". V T135 }"£ixe:§u1:i'\§fze Officer,
. 'Ta1Lik ?~'3li§thay*ati1,
l§ama..2"1agaram Taluk,
Fiamanagaram,
A Baiigéilore Rural District.
&
Kootagal Grama Panchayath,
Kootagal,
Ramarzagaram Taluk,
Bangaiar Rural District.
3. Sri.(i}angaiah,
S/0 Muniswemappa,
Age: Major, Residing at Kootagal
Viliage and Pest, f€amanagaramA,TaIuk,"' " '- . '
Bangalore Rural District. . fly; " RESP.
(BY SRi.M.KR1S;HNA ;;;As, Aevot:A'1*E we ae; "
SMT.M.C.NA{}ASI---IREE,"1':1.CGP'F$I?€ R'. e[2...},H
-1: 11- -3- ~
This Writ Petition «is. If:1.ec§;.,'111§derA Articles 226 and
'22'? ef the Constitution of Indie p1ja3n;11.g'_'_.to quash the
impugneri Greer. dateci"-'7§.'5.2QG4 by I as fllegal,
erroneous on fifiC€g me f_"1:e_QQ1'd, resulting in
miscarriage .0f7._i£1§'§t_i€:e~ve;1*3d 1-ete..__4- if; .
Tvhis- fihi,ti01'1;:A.eo1nfn1g er:--v:i:,>I"£1eaI*i1"1g this day, the
Court made fel1«:)w'in"g«:_§ _ --
" 2: R
jwiieard t1'2.e '1eéarnedTeounsel for the petitioner. The
V. flesgjbndent 'Enough served and represented
Art hretzge Ce-urlsel, the counsel remained absent.
'*2. }_i'tV ie the case of the petitioner that the site
A No.20 in Sy.Ne.9 of Kootagal Village, was
granted to the petitioners husband under "Garibi
' Hattavo Scheme" in the year 19'?'5-76. The first
Sgt.-~
.. 3 ..
respondent issued an endorsement dated 1999
stating that the site aliotted to the petiijonefs husband
has been Cancelled and the same has been allotted to
the third respondent herein. Aggieved by the”
petitioner filed an appeal with the
who confirmed the said order. Hence-this
3. The Contenfions Lzrged ,
for the petitioner is that eitea in her
husband’s favour has without any notice
to him: or_\x§’i1iiT:;<-2111; him in the matter. Secondly it
was eofo1:_e4i1de'o"~._ i:I'ze;i: site in question has been
eaneeiiecl one Whereas the same has been
of the third respondent on 19.'?.19&53.
L"'€)fl'___thee-e_…,f§vo;viiontexltions the iearned counsel for the
peifiitioraef 'contends that the impugleci order is bad in
iawu is iiable to be set aside.
‘ 4. There is no reference either in the impug1ed
endorselnent dated 2.3.1999 or in the order dated
WC.
” ” raeeoré§enee.fiwith law.
.. 4 ..
‘I’.5.’20U4 as to when notice was served on the petitioner
and as to how the authorities ma justiiiv the
allotlnent of the site on 1937. 1983 in favour of the third
respondent. The impugned oréers therefore are te
be interfered With.
5. For the aforesaid 1?ease:)1f1s,’
endorsement issued by me”;
N’o.VPC/Ci2/293/1998~99pd.§}:e§i 255. the ‘?;;;~c1er” A
passed by the second ‘iirease APPEAL
4/i.3(){_¥)()~{“)’_1A ” hereby quashed. The
respoxidserits issue notice to rhe petitioner
anq. gags ‘4 “a1§p1-op1i.s3;e”‘ erders thereof 115 nn in
I Sd/-.
Judge