High Court Karnataka High Court

Manchamma W/O Late Chakra … vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 30 May, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Manchamma W/O Late Chakra … vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 30 May, 2008
Author: K.Ramanna
    ':§§:"u.AN2§'G,A$:ATHNAMMANN1

IN THE awn Comm' 0;? KARNATAKA AT BAN;3A':§§ré'EV;. v A.
DATED THIS THE 30% my OF' MAY   "   V

BEFORE? I "I

THE HGWBLE MR.JU3rIdE_'i§----1é3.MAN_§iA., «. "  

WRIT PE'I'.?I"'ION N€3;1..:§3?2/2692 mm.)   
BETWEEN: A' ' A' E

MANGHAMMA       
W/0 {ATE CHAKRA DOm:)AK:,I_m'.A : 
SINCE DEAD BY I_iER Lms-"" " ' ' 
CHIKKACHELLPJAPAB'  :_
S/Q LATE MA.Ns::H;f§MMA. W _
46 YRS, HEAD c.'o.Ns*rABLEj;~--.._ 
R/A NACHANAHALLY   '
MYSORVE' . " '*i::.  *

PETi"I'IONER

 V (B:;"s:i Kv--T.NARAsIMHAN, ADV.)
AND: « %  *   
1 'swam ~01? KARNATAKA

-1 B'f.I'I'S TAHSILDAR

'  M'YSQ_RE TALL}-1 BY HER L.Rs

 A} MLALITHA
~53; jM.V.SUSHEE1.A AND
c;---- M.V.G()WRI

 - ALL ARE DAUGHTERS oz? LATE
M.V.VEERA RAJE was AND SISTERS OF R-2:,
ALL ARE MAJORS AND R/{Z3 N092!

 



     T. "1°H:z's:."\'a'..r.:;f~;%1":j PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85
" 22? 0F*'3'.H~E cmesrrruwron OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE

 §IUDGE,_.§§YSORE TALUK, MYSGRE AS PER ANNEXURE-B.

 ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF'

KA:sI°'rHA§A.JE: URS ROAIZ1, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSQRE

3 mmvaxm  b  .  -.
S_fO LATE JAVARA
h'}A.J(}I<'

4 PAPAJAH   4
MAJOR I

5 RAMA
MAJOR

6 «.1081
MAJOR

7 JAVARAIAH
MAJOR

3 DEVARA..L"s   j    
MAJORi  _ _     RESPONDENTS

— R1:–<3 ':73 ARE: »s5§%'1'r,;~_=s, .C§F'~£)E E?A1AH
.. %..AN::..A1,L–:5r2E R,:"r.3__ NASHANAHALLY
panszgg, msogm»

' « {By Sri 'R&MEvSH'-P 1§§ULKARNI,ADV FOR R-2{A–C)
»'Si2'i=T NARAGHUPATHY, ADV FOR R~–3,5 & 3
usxes C; r:)HANi31.F€ASHEKARAIAH,AGA FOR R-1

– V – 12-4 SERVED)

iiififiiii

ORDER IIl~’Af§’I§lZ3 15-3-1985 PASSEII3 BY THE ‘I’AHS!L{)AR,
MY’8GR__E’TA’LUK, MYSORE AS PER ANNEXURE~A AN}?! THE
OR’f)ER DATED 2-9-2000 PASSED BY THE I F§DDL.{}i$’I’RIC1T

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

01933393 THIS may, THIS comm” PRoNo:.{;sx:f;”;:*,fVDf’*4-I”*%;’i}§’::;

FOLLOWENG:

This writ petition is filcd mg’-p.tia1§c1§a’ mmi”

prayer to issue a writ of or cflacf ‘

the order dates! 15-3-1935 Mysore
Taluk, Mysore in (Annexu:rc–A)
and um order dated igfig 1 Addlflistrict
Judge, Mysqrg ‘$351988 (Anncxun:–B).

2. – Manchamma is
S3-Viifi. 13 85 22 in all mcasmmg
21 Nachanahally village, Mysore

Taluig land. The Sp}. Dy.Commissio11e:r

V’ . for’:—!.fia;:1:..s, the inam land in ilavcsurr of the

h;§_s’ba§;c1:V’of’%t§:¢’-‘petitioner – Doddakuntaiah and Manchaiah

b3r1_1§irde;¢.N§f_A2-0-R 1385/53-59 dated 26-8-I966. But: the

rcvcnaflrccortis pertaining to the land are written in the

A 5]” of NI Vccrarajc Um as inamdar. Thcmibm, Tahsiidaa’

‘ Vt-Vvas rcqucstcd to investigate and giant occupazzqr rights in

2’;

E

her favour. The respondent-3 Dcvaiah

applicatistm in HOA/1/79-80 claiming the

abevc said lands on the gvound thgeifhé’ waéa

was the barbaradar and he was

of theft by M Vcenarajc Urs >his.Vj3}ace,.Vj1%_zs5it:. £iiid $1′ the” A

petitioner and cm: Maficpa Wcifi ‘chai;3as. The
khata of the inam thc name of
” names of
husband OI1dit’E0fl that imam lands were being cultivated by the 3′

if
fa’?

\<

' i

Act. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the

petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the arguments of 2.

petitioner and also learned
Learned ecunsel for 1e5P0Ddcflt’3f « ” ‘ _« ‘ V.

4. It is cm-ntenctled by egungea.

that since her husbeigd    well as
Manchaiah were     as chakra of
 tifsyz;  of chakra

therefore, ofthe Land in her favour.
It is ;§’espefidej;ut-3 earlier was chalcra of
the to cultivate the mam land

in all meééuring 21 guntas out of Sy.Nos.13 and 22

* _ V3′-H.-:=4;e. Since her husband died in the year

‘ :3V9?’2_ ‘vexendering services for Q0 years, the petitioner

‘eeiiti111fi%:dA/~V’ei jzrcs? “be in enjoyment of the am’ land ha-um’ g

4′ to the rights: of the respondent — chakra

” V. It is further argued that since respondent-3 –

committed theft, he

was removed from the services
4

f

………. M

l
5

AER 1996 Kar 164. Thczcfmt, the present Writ petition.-is not

at an maintainabk and that same is fiablc to be _

6. Having hcard the argumtznfs of

the parties and aficr perused the 3;x_:_a.&-.ri4a1s V

new I proceed to act: whether

challcxxgc is incorxmt ‘i#§t_1cth.cr3 on» . L’

appointtncnt of Dodc};akunta__V:’_fi8;}..:_Ma»_;1cl:1 a ~– on
temporary basis are or claim right
over ttm main land. 1 ‘ V’

‘2’. No items of mam land
is 21 ‘:’tiotv’V:grii$11)ute£i that late Javara
was of Manchanahakli. After
the <31' – respondent-3 succeeded the

vflia' geofioé cha;'*iu'a."- he was rc11dc:rm' g his sc1vJ<:x°:s° to

'it; th<§ <:éi;"sei¢ity of chakxa. It is also undisputed

Hrs was Barbmdar in the yam 1952.

}:was mmovcd from the oficc of chalcradar's on

a13§gafiens of thcft. Husband of the pctitiomr md

A " " Wen: appoimnd as chakradars as substitutacs. While

'-s.

“X
1 ‘..f~.., /»

.L~/’2’*j” ,

appointizxg thc husband of that

oonsiimns’ was imflcd that -:

slzcccmaors of respondent-3

chakzra — respondent-3 was but A

without pmjudicxc: to 033313. the
inam iand. At the gzsupstimwd chalcra
i.c., husband .o£.’ t h¢_ they have not
claimed to enjoy only the
benefits %.oTf% that time. So, in view of
that: laid Court rcportnd in AIR 1996
Kar. 164; will not lose his right,

fdi of the land even his aavium were

‘ hyvtm Bmhardar on the alleged co1mmas1on’ ‘ of

1 in the cmiicr order made by the Sp].

mm’ gms-m ‘ in AZ-O-R xms/53-59 dah-ad

25;/8/A’ has held that out of the above sm’d land clawed’

pcfitioncr, oniy 5 Acres oflmrd was inam. land and it

further ordered to be mgxanted in thc 123111;: of the

o1iginalchakmsandthcbamocof}.6Ac1ts15Gunmswas

ordered to be meogaiscd under Section flge

Abolition Act, 1954. Thcrcsforc,

challenged the cariicr anger c:i__’ =

Co1x:m1ss1<m' ' er which wcnt aga:é'n'__ "_%st V

any bcncfit under thy; nfi r;'ght §has bccn
ooniitrmd on them in has
been made by mm that a
right has order of m Deputy
fin AZ-0-R 1385/58«59
is the pct£t1om:r" in the said
by both the pmfics and the law

Court mpomd in AIR 1996 Kat. 164.

fivom may angle. I do not find any good

the orders impugned. Hence, the writ

as; dmn;s' ' sad.

Sd/:1?

”89 Jim