Karnataka High Court
Majeed vs Tahsildar Periyapatna Taluk on 11 June, 2008
in ms area mum on KARNATAKA. .
DATED nus THE 11TH DAYQF ,4'
BEFORE
THE I-i0N'BLE MR. _RAM iR9§.=;Ba*{
wnrr pmmon 1' ('LE_RE'3)
1 MAJEED, Si-Q
A[A 40 '1fR"§,__§30. 16. A-$!~IRAYA«.i*OJANE
3AnAvA;~;E,;aus3tvR; H '_ 1; V A
PER!YAP£.TNK M:.*s£>Rr; mar. PE'I'I'I'IONER
(By Sri; ")
1 ;:':;;T15{''HsxLn~AR;'' "
_~ '5'«PfiE§§?Yf\PATNA.TQ, PERIYAPATNA.
2 % . 1*HE'~BL§}'CK DEVELOPMENT omcsn,
' f~=~aR2yA?:.a'_§¢A TQ, PERIYAPATNA.
L 3 .. V'!'I'ivE,~'C';I:~:IlI§F OFFICER,
" 'rosvN MUNICIPAL oourzcm,
PERSYAPATNA.
*1f;,§ _ aamswxrnx,
Aw/0 GANAPATHI BHAT,
MAJOR, fil A PERIYJKPATNA,
MYSORE DIST. ...RESPONI)EN'l'S
V " V (By firi. T.N.RAGHUPATHY FOR R3 as 4; Sri RAMESi*I
BANNAPPAHAVAR, AGA FOR R1 & 2; Sri:
M.R.I{RlSHNAMURTHY FOR R4)
*1
,.....«v
Ti-IIS wan' PE'I'l'I'iON is 93.39 UNDER -
AND 22': or TI-IE CONSTI'I'UT§0N or INBIA P?AY'ING '!'G-. M
QUASH THE (mam was ANNEX_._L. _I_'AS§EIJ'*~B'_'{.
12.2.99.
THIS PETITION, comm.' oN F{)':2
DAY THE COURT MADE THE '
The petitioner .....lg.g. V ' and
ownership of measuring
East was; s....a%4o ft., of 1-inbbur
1..__199§2 Anna:xm'e A, suck. the
A. ordimction quashing
at Anncxuxe L %wd by
, No.3 in No.00O8236 dated
L in mother Hakka Patina dated
k'51:.>..2. iaaued by the and mspondcnt in favour of 4:»
% mépoadent in naspect of sifie :«zo.16 filmed in Sy.Na.92
'. Apmxently, the dispute has arisen
between the petitioner and 4*" mspondcnt on account of
appropxhte proceeding bcfim: a
7..Aoc:=$Iipetg:12tV ' ~ of law, if so advised.
T " «:53
two Hakka pathmsAnnnxure-A and I. referred
The contention of the karnod counsel for
that 1:11: 4*" respomicnt was not for and " =
that Anncxure L is unsustaémbag
which secms to one, is more a:;:pr§)pIi«a '&;_"fur V
a Civil Court, more so in flu: to the
resolution of the Gram; as
may be, under the Panchayath
Raj Act, 1993 thc:1AsitcL Véth Respondent,
hmding to r—aihms Anncxums L.
Hence,
the petitkmer to haw: his
3d/-3
Iudgg