Manikyaraj Padival vs State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT  '   

DATED THIS THE 15"' DAY 6F      
THE HON'BLE MR. ANAND 
WRIT PET1T1(;:« 1 LR)
BETWEEN:     L   

Shri. Manikymj Pakiiva-1%, S6   ;   * 

Slo Late. N.     

Residing at  3   "

Jail Roar1,1\a1ang.z1omk§-A %' ;57se9j3  

Sri. Padma:aj«.Padi1§8i' 3 '_   T  PE.TmoN2'.R

(By   S, Advocate)

 Reforms
Tribunal, 

  Taluk

R   ~¥"::._.K. Iiistr-ict

4. U. N. Abdui Hameed, 38 years

8»



S. Aisa, 36years

6. U. N. Abulluar, 34 years
7. Mimuna, 32 years
8. Siraj, 3} years

Allhuirs ufdaceased  5

U. Iddikunh Residcnm £)f_P " ;

Nayapalna, Someshwur   '

Ucchil Post Sagjawbwiir :   ' 

Kolekar,  _     '   RESPOISDENTS

(By Shli.   Govemment Pleaader for

Re:spondwt'}~I¢2}l',i,   Shetty, Advomte for
R68§IJfld_¢fll5 Nos§':2:-ha)' .. ' ' -

This W pcumm  jiied under Articles 226 and 227 ufihc

  :i3£TA_.Iz3diaé:VVu;'§§§;iying :0 quash the outer daied 6.4.2002

 paswd by the Land Reforms Tribunal,

   L Maggauow;  Taluk.

A   'Writ Pcliliitm coming on far Hearing this day, the

   made the foih2wing: -



 gun 

Heard the: Counsel for lhc  
2. The ms an: as r..;;ws;{ L

The petitioner ulainggs as ap.'Gflaa;d in survtsy

89 cents. He  'lo   under a registered
deed dated 2:}!   mvner B.Vt:nkatasnbbarao
and  .~¢1u9a:am cjflhc same.

0...;  gr  Ucehil, Mangalore said to
 before the Tribunal in Funn No.7

 

 rights in it-.-spec! of the said land. The Tribunai

had ncy rights by an order dated 21-9.1973. This

  before this Court in WP 1142313979. The; same

4'    as it was found that lhe peli£umt:r' had not bean

V'   naive of the proceedings and the matter remamltad.

@



 

3. Uptm remand, the Tribunal   

appiicaliou and in the mmwhnc,  '::1';:',:»§i§:_1n&"l:Ax.n:pi('i« }fIis  

legal representatives challenged.   

in WP24929/1992. The same  of the
Tribunai was set asidg    Tribunal
1190!! such    3.§n[ed 6.42002 Ins
3"""°"  n  petiiimwr as per

     

  i;;iciii.u'11ner mum, cm [he race of in,

denxaasualc  a mm-speaking order. II has not

 V.   Vienmms Mgranling occupancy righls in favour of the

 x   Cuunsel for the respondents, on the other hand

Qubanit that though {he impugned under is brief; il canno! be

‘ ‘T » . _ that ii is not a spwking order. The Tribunal has indicated that

2

txmsidcrlhecascofthc

appiicamts and pass

RV