Narasiyappa @ Narasappa vs State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Narasiyappa @ Narasappa vs State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
" ~ ' ~  '  Nag:=iih_¢£naha31i
..  .. AA Thgndebavi Hobli
"  Gtixaéribidanur Taluk

 _  Shri. V. S. Jagzinatli, Advcxzate for Fetilioncrs Nos. 1 to 4,
" Shri. M. 'L Iagan Mohan for proposed fer Petitiontzr No. 5}

DATED mxs THE 15"?" DAY    & L
THE I-10N°3LE MR. JUSTICE;-xNA1$:t3 
WRIT 1>E'r1T13éJ %?~I_<2;f.:*3?4$§ <3?£%'A%A2c~1 


1. Narasiyapfi;   J   
70 years     .  

SE0 Bavirnal --~ ' '

3- Sri. Pu1l2ViV'1:;;3iu§,?$ j;s;='a4i§¥s'" 
Sfo;3anjc¢vaiah  " " V'

Taiide.-in Majaru

" Kaiar District «- 561 213 . . . PETYFIONERS




1. Siam of Karnataka
By its Principal Secretary
Revenue Departtnetat
M. S. Buiiding

2. Land Tribunal
Gowribidnmzr Taiuk
Kolar Distxict
3. Narasimhaswgmy and  _,    
Represented V.  
 GQwri1i2§da1;*;_r"  *

KoIaxv'VDistrictV5 .v _ 7'; '

4. subb:a¢._Bead 'by'i:ijs_L'.'R_ai' 
Majer, S/0  " '
R.ޤde1__1t.ofNa.'20.. %%%%% 

. . «M: S.  Ran Road


C  _Ba.¢ga3u;:p-+4   RESPONDENTS

Vv _ (By Sathyanarayan Sirzgh, Guvermrncnl Ficader for
Responcignis Nos. 1 to 3, Shri. G. L. Vishwa:xath,, Advocate far

< H K A' wlfieagxygzdefil N0. 4)



Hanumegowda and Narasimhzsiah are eeneerned

that the matter is pending een:sideratim:r.' " ~.

3. In the meanwhile, theVgefimfiérgV:cm;1e§§dAV’.ig;iat’,,h–§;:vi§;g~ti”

regard to the pmvisiun which £9; meg no. 7
having been extended, .4 an application
seeking same is pending
mmsideratiomi” contend that they were
tenants iga” relevant date, namely,
dated notice of the proceedings as

regards gag Sam iehaw been filed by amhak Subbarae

proceedings otherwise and flnerefow,

u no opportunity it: challenge or contest the

_elaim”‘ef Asuhbamu and hence, the fact that the peliiitmers

‘ the earns: week} be irrelevant, insofiar as the

having iadependentiy flied an seeking

T ” rights in Form no. 7 which has. been legitimateiy filed

within the time prescsibed and therefore there is no impediment in


mogxmed only because, an has been V’ > é ,

by them. This xwuld be a travesty ufiiiiéiitgc. gym

held entitled to upset orders ‘~ n

6. Insulin: as the 1 to the
grant of occupancy and
Natasimhaiah an application
filed by the ,.s.;.;s wouid was It) a

relevant am

V?” I; that as amid be seen fmrn the

filed by the peanmm are under the

(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams

V 1954 and are nevi pmowdings which can be

‘ by the Tribumi and simx: the mspomicnls claim an

& 1 right which has crystaliised and aiiained finality in

year 1986, the petitioners being permitted to re-open these



Insofiir as the rcsgxmdcnls are concerned

made by the in their Form :;i{:$A.h 7,’

be permitted {(3 contest the chasm ggad matgegtifito %

my The Tribunal shall ien”:§§« these A

prowtsdiags while ._ the
same on merits inqiudingALt:a::’i:=s1f§:VA¢pfE§fn§lé£!§efi which may be
raised instafiar as conccmed.

Ammsngjy, g.g,agPc.;1;¢;.,;sau;.,w.,a and the order of
the Tribufiaal fié figiashai- The matter is mmamicd

in the Land re-txms2dcra’ lion and disgxaesu I in

wiatg the light of the observations made

of the are left open.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information