High Court Karnataka High Court

Shivalingayya vs State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Shivalingayya vs State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA T

BAN GALGRE

DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY OF 2995  

BEF()R'E*-. &  

"aw; H.(}N'BLE V1i,VQj,»RAMESl"Iv'VV"

-4...» 411?!

WRIT PET1T1oN?sikfj.21s L 

 

BE'l'W,l;3EN:

L

B.)

Shivalingayya,

S/o Shankx'yya(3urafi,"V..:  _ .
Age:  yegrs, {.'rc-;:::: .%ric:_';:it.'a:'e, '' "
Rlo Nid;~'.'sosh'i;.._Tal:.j;H1ikkeg°i;   '

. 1 'V Siiit.'S=aé.hi%a; 5%'.-"a"s' '{}{:ada3?}*9;' Gurav,

':.Ag::: 52 'yaa:S,' Agrieulture,

R/9 Nidasgjshi; . Ta1__; I !.u.='L-dceri.

 S/Ad [findayya Gurav,
Age: 28 y'ear.S,..C 1003 Agricllifilfé.

k% ;'R':'o_'1\Ii:g1asoshi, Ta]: Hukkeri.

. "'N'ijay3;éj1,~*Sio Dundayya Gurav,

Ag:-.s:'i._?..5 years, Occ: Agriculture,

 Nidasoshi, Tali Hulckeri. ..PETTTiUNE'R'S
' "  Sri.Sachin.S.1\/Iagadum, Adv.)

" Amn-
I-In

I'll.'

 

1.

State of Karnataka,
Rcrgrasented by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
\\lV/

M.S.Buildings, Bangalore-560001.

‘3 ‘I’ …….1 “I””…’L……l l”‘LZ’I.-A.-ll
L. Luuu 1llUl.llli1l, \..zu1n. rut,
By its Chairman,
Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum.

3. Tahasildar Chikodi,

Taiukz Chikodi.

(By Sri.Nadiga Shivanar-flappa,

This Writ Pe’tition_«ii§mfiieii.’iinder Aiiicieszzs and 227 of

the Constitution ot’in_iii’a_ the order dt.4.5.05 by

__ Fe-.titie_1i-coming on for preliminary hearing in

‘Bi’ made the following:

. . . . .

V A ‘j_Petitioners have sought for to quash the order of the Land

Chikodi dated 4.5.05 in rejecting their appiication

11’

flied for grant of occupancy rights in respect of S’y.m3.33r’l

measuring 5 acres 18 guntas, Sy.No.28l/4 measuring 1 gunta

u\../

Lt-J

Chikodi Taluk.

2; Ac:.eo-din.g to the peti}tioners,._tla.ey-:had

Aiiiic psfiies in

for grant of occupancypclrights in respecto

question and along {them one iphiahadeva Maharudra

Guruva had also to:-tin occitpancy rights as a

of 0C.G!lli§I5£ln-éiji _r_ights_ii: _ti1vot:tf~ tlieiipetitioners as per Annexure

fC.7., _ PIoWev;er,_ s.ince”the..tiy_ali application was not considered,

as per oit”thi§«.Court in the writ petition filed the matter

was t jf” vi.-aided ‘

..i.~ .. 1… 1…: ‘r’..:t……..
¥~.i’k tr inc Liuuu 1 I

L; ……I …..’…. …

._LJ Iluullau nu duuug tin:

géndencyi iiotiv-.t.he’ matter applicant No.4 Mahadev Maharudra

a. said to have died and the Land Tribunal on the strength

I1

of tiled on behalf of the LRs., of Mahadev

ii Maharudra Guruva that they are not interested in prosecuting

the matter has dismissed all the applications including the

application filed by the petitioners by its impugned order vide

l”\.II.lI..\uM’\|pII-\J .l. . ‘*\l

3. It is the submission of the petitio::~ersfi: that

there was no reason for the L.a-_d _Tri_§,i~i.na!.i.::’t.. .ej’e-et
‘”p”eation filed by the petitioners.r’Ho’wever,— aee’ordi.:::gi to the?

learned Government Pleader, there wasial.so.._sub3inission on

behalf of the petitioners rejeet theiapplieation filed and as

such, the I..-and Ttitaaeal rejected the el”i’n “aftne petit”ic’iers

as well ii
“”” applicant No.4 had filed such :1. Memo

_ so far”as”other applicants are concerned the Land Tribunal after

lieeiing them””either could have passed an order of granting

oee_upaney.. rights or eould -.ave .e-jeet.-d the application. uut

withoiiti giving iibeity to the petitioners and without assigning

reasons the impugned order has been passed, which

‘ requires interference.

W

ence, petitirvrl is auowed and the impugned order is
quashed. The matter is remitted back to the-LazidTrib11nal,

Chikodi for disposal of the same in aceordéiheev K

U3
‘an
E

Q;

‘Q
0