High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri Bhimasha vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Shri Bhimasha vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 September, 2008
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & Manjunath
 ~      V
 -V Sf-Q Late Bliifixasha

§N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK:X"* %    _

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARG-A_'::j~VV   %

DATE!) THIS THE sow DAY 02;' sE15frE1»{E§ER 2098  1'

PREVS'i:'.}}uI.T ' V A
THE H()N'BLE MR.P.D.D1N;§@£RA§I,  Jt J sT1cE
V  ? A1}{i13j%['A  u %
THE H0N*BL§; MR.  i%;L:&.A1§zJUNATH

 2 {§g§,g;A'1<;tjl975,#.._:::'{3'iV(Lié)

     
Sri Bningasha    

S / 0 Shettisfipa
Dead by LRSL4 "

'Agfi:"38 ye-;a;s,..%V  

C):-:0:  . . 

  2. Sri-«.Dashar§3;th
 4 3/0 Lam Bhimasha
 '  %"A€6= 36 ymrs
 _ Qcczw A4g;ri.cu1tu1'e

'   S;»I'i Dt3Vi1f1dI'a.
 T  Late Bhimasha
  "Age: 32 years,
 "Occ: Agriculture

 

nu u..n:|..:nu..-n-1-Ln: -A -u...gu....n. .. um. um... .....u........ .. .-.__... .. ... ...-.-.-....... .4. .u...a....gu. -Au: n_nn..1:1..:LIu|.ru its I\ll'lI'\"h £.I£\iI..I Uf\i\-I'§¥fKI!I"f\f -In lxfln', 



A1} are R/() Kapeuloox' Village
Tq ané Dist: Guibarga,

(By Srifluhppa Heroor, Advocate)

AND:

1.

The State of
Represented by its Secmtary

Revenue Depmtmentmand Reformfl ‘V

M.S.I:3ui}dings, as 2,

2. The SecretafY .

Land Tribunal 36..Tar3:?i1ci}:1i§« ‘ ‘; 4. V ‘

Gulbarga ii;

Dist: Gul1:aé.,1;*ga.– ‘ ‘

3. Sri Balchander A V
S/0 ‘£)amodar Rae ‘B<).f:iV-Izgtusaxfli
Age: 32 V" V
j0_Ka;:)_a3:1Qor 23.1; presém"
I4I.No.'3–,2'?41+j.¢§;,–I§42.:noj Building

Main 'Vifioaei, ~

» . L (}1.1£ba1'ga,–585'_"g1 Q '

4.%s1~1 Afijaraakiixnar
.. ., j -‘3 G.Late Bagfiodar Rat)
._ –._I§kg(:’3»I, Seyfctars
C)cc:.’B1,_1.$i’ncss

R-,1o 1s§.No.3–:27*4/A,

Eviazxoj Building

‘ Main Road, Gulbarga.

5. Fakeer Ahmed

S/Q Mohd. Khaja Miyasab
Age: 55 years

Occ: Business

R/9 Kapanoor Village

Tq and Diet: Guibarga, _ ‘
j

[By Sri S.S.Ku;mma;r1, Qeverrfinefit, ;«%;”or’R”‘i~ R2
3:1.am.c:handrashe:<ar,_;§#;1voca:¢ fz3.1f?€_3"«~&;'i-25)"

This Writ ~ is :« Seedon 4 of the
Kamataka High Court' 'Act ';)1"?"ayinIg=v._'tr} 'set aside the order
passed in the Writ Petité,e_I_i_ N0;.1867'(;'»j'2Q£L§.6 dated 17.04.2007 .

T'!;1is._ on for orders this day, the
Court delivered. t:I'1e;e«fe11efW-i;1g,:~

– A JUDGMEHT

{Defi§erf;d by P D Dinakaran, C.J.)

,, ,. V aldpeal is directed against the order dated 17131 April

:aQe7e~ Writ petition N0.1867{)/C2006. The

g u1″;S£1r;CefsSiii1 writ petitioners are the appellants herein. The

..Writ-‘…épefifioners are the legal heirs of one Bhimasha, who

‘ an appiication in Form No.7 befere the Land Tribunal,

dd Mifiulbarga fer reg’steri1″;g his; name as an occupant in respect;

of an extent of 19 Acres 1′? guntas of land of

Kapanoor Village of Gulbarga Hobli and V .¥..§a1″§.{l

Tribunal in its order dated 24.8.1981? held :t,lTlia_.»1:’:}§A.?¢.l”1l.i…Ii7:fi$.l:1é.Abé?;vIl:T’1(l it

two other applicants were nQt_tl:1e te_na*<1ts,the§}f $ive_1_"e,

labourers. Aggrieved by the oijdelzi,'-.:'1:'1§:v':1e.§al heirs of
Blximasha have moved #3670/2006
after 24 years, which to'£lisn1issed by the
learned single ;4'.'l200'7 mainly on the
ground of Hence the present
appeal.

2. L’es.1*ned”‘ for the writ appellants contend

that illiterate and they are making repeated

A’representa’tio12sl”te_ the autholiities that they were tenants but

11ot*-lé§beure=fs.. thus reiterated the contentions made

before ‘the single Judge. We are unable to appreciate

ieefitefitiozis made on of the writ appellants. It is

__’ti*ue.tl1et right to approaeli for a judicial review under Article

A» ” ef Co:nsti1:1.1t;ion of India is a remedy in distinct, but such