Before
mg HON'BLE MR JUSHCE V; Réiyiisfi. " 'V
WritPetition 33976] 26i04[" .A " 2
Between: 'V V i V
Sri R Munishamaiah S/0 late Apiispejaappza' M"
{U
R M Mohaia --
R M yrs' '
PP
Petitioner is the zviféi aiid ._ ' '
Children of late Ivlmtishamziiah'
Rfa Ronoor Viilage, Siinivas apurafifaluk
Kolar District V Petitioners
' 'V " aS{has*.r§.g Adv.)
1. Beputyifjeméniésioncr, Kolar District
' Eéhaivira Devaru & Chowdcshwari
'' £1.15"
Devara, Ronoor Village, Srinivasapura Tq
.. A ' *~1§Lolar District - by the Tahsildar &
* Muzrai Ofiicer, Srinivasapura Taluk
Kolar District
3"
I
is
3
ID
ID
=3»
3.
_ _mmhnnI1nn 9/0 P nai .
..,,.............- .. .. - ..,.......- _- -..-, -
35"'
I
a. P Rajashekaraiah Slo Papaiah
R/a Temple Street, Old Town
Bethainanyla, 13-eitgaipet Ialulg
Kolar
4. Venkata Reddy Sfo Choda Reddy ~
deaf': by LRs' 1
a. Sm Venkatamma W/'0 Venkatereddy, 60
D .
I
'gddnnnn Q/n Inha 'fnnlrafn Da1'If1Il'~ 1!'-Q urn .
LIT 'J Jul? V fl'l'"|" _'-'I' JJD
$5'
Prakash S/o late Venkata Reddy,_ __
Suresh S/0 late Venkate. 403 ~ .__ u ' 'v
9-?'
All are r/o Ronoor, Sfiniyeehpur ' '
KolarDistrict_:' ' A. .
5. State of b_v':its_A'.S5eeretar§ij V i
Revenue Dew;-:i.rIm mi: .
1. .
.~----yo
(nu QM: 'I1'-|.:1-.'S-non ' I-'nun v (-
'J-'J' L311 lJI1lVV,E'lI"IiWiaPwa, Vial K')! 5\..I- J,
Sri L M C11idanandaieh,«~.Adv. fer R3__(a); Ismt Sudha,
Adv.forR¥1) ._ =
511113. Writ Petition is flied under Art.226/227 of the Constitution
= ._prayi.:ig«:.to tl1e'"'ortier.dated 4.8.2004 - annexure E by the Deputy
Coxnrtiissioner. ~
" _ . *r:za§' "'tVfg'guPgt" "
fetioe-sag;
V' V. _ .°Petitioners claiming to be the tenants have assailed the order of the
Deputy Commissioner, Kelar dated 4.8.2004 rejecting the claim of the
' v petitioner and they have sought for quashing the same.
\I-/
W'
and y.No.i2O to an extent of 1.13 acres were tenanted"1andis~and~ton.such' it
grant in favour of the respondent, he has soughtfor hoffioeeupanejprigitts '
on the ground that he was a tenant aseand on 15ni_or”to 1.7t:.197Q,iV lz-Iovtever, the
Deputy Commissioner/authorised ofiieert.ha’ving notedltiuit these lands were
not tenanted lands and rather’itt_ wasidmoi-e” iri.the_forrn of all mortgage, has
rejected the claim of the petitioners :iHeneé.vthis_ ftetition.
However, rnatter.’ on persuasion the parties have
come to ‘t’§_l1:dffl]6&::3i eornpromiseji tition under 0 23 R 3, CPC. Pursuant
agreed that respect of »'[‘.tI’.”‘§t[V’lt”«i”lf\/’ in s3_v’.J.\u’J.
– V. «_ SrinivasapuraV ‘1’alul€””t0t.__i_i1).vextent of 38 guntas, the respondents have no
ohjeI:tion_to.eonfer occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners. Similarly in
uresnec-t of an extent of 3.00 acres the respondents have agreed to
oecupancy rights in favour of the petitioners.
In that view of the matter, out of four survey numbers mentioned
it ” shove, as regards these two survey numbers to the extent mentioned therein in
modification of the order of the Deputy Commissioner/authorised officer, the
154″‘
J}…
petitioners have been granted occupancy rights. Rest of the oriieieof the
Deputy Commissioner remains undisturbed which G0nfil’tflS” Vofféthe
respondents in respect of the remaining lands;
P ‘ii : is disposed “f Ii”! “rmns if tfrr e”‘zrpi*c”:1ise.