IN ms HIGH mum 01+' KARNATAXA Afr
DATED THIS THE 02% van: {OF JUNE * '
BEF0:駫:--
THE HONBLE §aR.Ju$ri€:E 1'~:.,ANANm _
Mathru Eduxratidn 'I?£'i12st.. I
No.42S fis 425/A,,_%S*5"i\rIain"-.,j;'-.._ _
3*" Stage, 3"
Rep. by its 'I'_;rt1stc§, . _'
(33; Sri G.V. for Sri H.N.Shashidhara:
Kesvy Advocates'; '
V _ T. 319;' ».Mafia_ Vcnkatappa
S)' {).A
'A : ,_ Majbr
._ j " 'Mtmiyappa
Father's name not knawn
Major
" V4. Chikkamanthappa
Fathefis name not known, Major
5. Hanumanthappa
S] o. Sottappa, Major
10.
--Ma:jor' L
Krishna . .
Fathcfis _ . "
Major " " '
(Respondtmt-N
ggé Order datcd
17.01.2903
). ‘V v % %
‘W/0. – ~_
Majcw .. v v
-V W/0.”
1*/a: Village
Yeskwanthpur Hohli
13%;;
Bangalore North ‘I’aluk-560 084.
Raju
Father’s name not known
Major, R/a: Kebbe Palya
Ycshwantpur Hobli
Batxgaiore Noah TaIuk«-560 O84. …R£-mpoadents
V stunt: slabs and fined suit
_ oocupwta. On 03.07.2004. at about
_ I1.(§@.__Va.l1u:.;’:<;i;*:fi:;ndants tzespasacd suit schedule '
gbsmgbtod plainfiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment
VA pzopcrt1cs' .
VA V dcfe11dants are as follows:- 7V’ *
It is the case of pla%mt:ifi” that’ “it
charitable trust. The piaintifi has
start 9. nmaing eoficge. __ %
Bangalore Urban [)1’strict;, by
ganted 5 acres of land 3_acrcs w’ lmd
in smvey No.25 1
village, 93:3; a pcnbd of 30
years per ammzm. After
completing was put in possession
of said as plaint ‘A’ & ‘B’ sclwduk:
3. The avenncnts of writtcn statement filed by
The defendants an: in
enjoyment of land in survey Nes.m 3:} ?f
No.19 of Somashettyhalii %
They are tmauthorisedly to 40
yt-.-ars conficauously, _knoawbdge of
revenue authofitiafs’, by adverse
posseaaion. cif filed Faun
Nos.5O 89 under section
94A of Act. Om: Akkay%
mo. late Ap1$aya’});1.¢’iFo1m No.53 on 03.12.1993,
which is before the sad’ Committtee.
. by other persons fir 1eg11.l.anaa’ tion
iof are pending As
the fifithofifics dki not consider the application;
by”c’i§iEnda;1ts, they filed W.P.Nos.27382~27405[2G04.
by order dated 13.07.2004, duectod’ N concerned
‘ V’ : au’1§:}1o1ih?::s to consider the appticafions filed by defendants
fwithi11 three months. The defendants an: in settled
possession of suit schedule pmpcrtics, therefore, plamtifi
cannot claim relief of permanent injunction agdmst
1U.
certified copy of judgment
was not markw and i
dated 23.11.1996 01V._f).4u.i:’,'”£0_()’2._’
constituted for _’~lI1autl1ormmi’
cultivation nut” case was
vu. submit additional
evidence is ‘fa: just disposal of the case.
10. for defendants km» made
” v v
” f}?11¢2_v4deii:1i€ia._1;xts are in unauthorised cultivation of suit
ii for the last 30 to 40 years, their
ibr ‘ – ‘ lion of unauthorised
ii A’ ‘ are pending before the Committee’
eonstituhed for regulan.sa’ tion of unauthorised’
cultivation. Since the Coznxnittee did not consider their
appficaiions, defendants wen: befiare this Court in
W.P.Nos.2’7382-2?405[200¢. This Court by onier
12
certain’ lands were damaged. The photoga’aph.i3j: fiiedv ‘
defendants Wonk! show mg” md other”cmps
mm’ lands. Themfom, photwaphe; “iiy 5” T%f
are not decisive on the issue ofaf
pmpclties. b ‘h V»
13. The learned Jaw documents
filed by suit schedule
properties are documents. The
learned any reasons to mould
such mung’. have not raised such a plea in
the written 2 ed tau!’ Judge by relying” on
. gndagxeement defendants and also order passed
‘,by; “this»,_ ‘{‘,efi§i*£ in W.P.Nos.27382-27405/2004 dated
eome to cxmclusion that dckndants are in
‘foocupation of suit scthedule pmperfies. The
K Judge has aiso heki piainiifi’ has not proved
schedules properties have been based to it by the
T Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. The learned trial Judge
” has held that defendants are in settied possession of suit
N.
schedule pmpcrtx:’ s. The lcarnevd t1’i¢’:_1_l……1»1__1’dg1=:_– d”i;ci” .4 2
substantive evidence to azrrixns: at such;”corgcin’si51:., ”
14. It is seen ‘t,
c.c.No.33-4/2005 dated 1§1.a3.2Q96,-
herein were convictxadv ,’ ,5″** A ghwuh
properties and erected
around the Es passed in
C.C.No.88r-4] committed trespass
15. Counsel for pmw ‘ would
subntiig. 2 I4.03.2006, passed it
estabiish plajntifiwas in possession
This document has not been
V L mimiimi swim:-me. The plai11tifi’ has filed certified copies of
of the Committee dated 23.11.1996 and
‘M1&T.m%}m.~2oo2, to cstabiish that as an the date of disposal of
‘ W~.~i°.Nos.27382—27405]2004, the applications filed by
” ‘defendants bctbrc the (liommithec onnatitautrsd for