,1.
{N THE HEGH COURT GE' KARNATAKA
CIRCUZT BENCR AT DHARWAI}
mmu THIS THE 30% DAY 09 O{3'i'0BER 2QO$"=
PRESENT J u 4_
' THE HOWBLE MR.JUs'r:CE 9.V.sHYLEE$I§i2;.%'s 1e:i§i'%§&'AR'
wag H{)?¢'I3LE MR.JL:sT;¢§;. _;S:{EBf'IASfi{_--v_::B';ADi "
wrzrr APPEAL re.§';so12£r.§;'}eS§1.:,___
3,; 0: '§=iR£SHN;é. _SI»£!';S"I'R';'» '
2. K;s§:'z§iVgs' . ,
AGED 4:; YEARS_ A _ <
S/C} Kxisgwsl s1-a';éxs';"f_g';~:*«..\
_ 3, m';éP1~;<R:s1§§'NA A
Ac;'g§;*-40 'YEARS """ " "
LA mg/O _E<iI?..I:"3~.§{I€..A. SHASTRY
A . gem; gé§'E.,,;EEVé:vr3:Na A'? N<::,24:
V * {By 3;; C.§.sR£NivAsAza§, g§&:.:;
$553 STATE OF' §«:Am~.rA':*AxA
' .18='1'H wami
E'3.RA£-{Ze*i2':. VE'~:~HAS'?'E2Y CQMFGUNEE,
C}AE§D"HI NAGAR, BELLARY 5&3 19:. .. z1.PF'EL§.fisN'E'S
BY ITS SECRETARY
EQEVEENEEE BEPARTMENT
E\¢'E,S.E3;,I1LII}§§\§Cx,
DR.AMBED§{AR VEEDHI
SANGALOQE 569 G9}
A. ,1} a2rAé~;ABQ0B 8583A
..,5.;_;_:§ ARE R,!A'I' GUQQARAHATTI
" COWL BAZAAR,
\. BELLARY TALUK AND EDISTRICTA H gaspewagwws
pa
THE LANE TRIBUNAL
BY ITS SECRETARY,
BELLARY TALUK,
BELLARY.
3" THE TAHSILDAR'
BELLARY TALUK,
BELLARY.
4. SM'? KAMAL BI W/Q L.A'{'E EAJA SAB
DEAR') 3'; LR.
HUSSAIN 558
8/0 LATE RAJA SAB
SINCE DEAD BY ma
:1} SIVfT.ZAiTHUMB§
W/O LATE HUSSAEN SAB
AGED ABOUT 54YRf3, 053$: E*}£3_?.TST'£';.?u'I}3'E, 'V
b} SMTALLHABEE _
AGED ABGUT 44 YIf1§$,' V
2310 m.'FE_§~fL}_S8A:§N sag, _ . _ -
OCC:CQOI;:TJ§',.,' 2:
C} ism'): BEEEESE _ _
AGEE) A3oUf1*A.39»-YRS, " _
D/Q LATE §:EU$SAIN--.__SPxE3',
QCC:._AGRICiJL'I'URE;;*
;i_; MQHAMMED
V. z?g€}EE} ABGU'I""*;'3?'Y§€'S,
~_ Sm LATE} HUSSAZN sag,
" T _c€:;;x;€;;m::13§,TUR€,
'~ 5:3' 2{:ié;'s:;:.a::',:= 2463:) ABOUT 3*? YEARS
3/.9 Lgsrg HUSSAENSAE3
" O(;f:Z:'A€}I2ICULTURE
AGES ABOUT 2% mmtas
S/O :..9;ra: HUSSAIN sag
{By Sri'ANANB NAVADGZMATH, ECG? FQE1? R1»R3
SFZI M.V.V.R'AMANA 8; SR': M.H.DA'i'AR', ABVS.
FOR f2~4{a) to {Q}
-3-
TEES WRIT A§'F'EAL IS WLED {HS 4 OF' THE E<lARNATAE{A
HEGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDEEQ PASSED EN
THE WRIT PET£'E'iOI'l NG.3409?]'2QQ1 DATED 12f200:'3.
This Appeiai coming an for Hearing this day, _
ADI J., ddgivered the foliowing; ' .
J U D G M E N T V
This is an appeal against the ::):*t1c=:£'« of .Sigx'g}t:u b T "
Judge in w.P.No,34097/200: dated
2. Deceased resmndeng --. V
petition, questioning '£}1<:<)}der .o'f 'VI;;:;3.f:1d rejtcting
her appliczation by order :.i11e ground that,
the 0112161' is v:"f5c}3.2§tiv_e H p%"G{fi:;io1is":«<$f Rule 1'? of the
Kaxnataiia L:pa'y§1§;.'z,*.T.j'V_§?.'¢Vf{J=zj;'tns: 'Rf§}1e*s héfiéminafter referred to as 'the
Rules') anti 130:' "o1'é1c:r.
'Case 'V9?-.i he' biecéaééd respondent No.4 is that, the land
AV Qiiestisflfi ié imam land and covered under the provisions ef
Imam Aboiition Act 1977 (hereinafter refezrred
“=-v.___Vprrovisioi;$__ i>i’ Saction 11 subsection (1) of the Act for gram: of
rights. The Lana} Tribunal without consfiering her
‘ and without assigziing any cegent and groper reasons has
Trejected the said application.
Q.-_;’;u%.»n.lfi
ta a:~:.__V’ti1::- she had made an application under the
..4..
4. Learned Single Judge ccmsidering the order 0f the Land
Tribtmai feumi that, the provisions of Ruin: 1′? of the Ru__}_.es are
appiicabie $0 the application flied under Section }}.(1f1j Act
and the procedure contemplated therein is 4_
foflcwed by the Tribunal. He also {Quasi igf
Land Txibunai is not a speakixlg oin:e::;{‘%’ it ‘the
appellant herein has raised a’ (;v'(i=;-2:1fVtt:HV1′;’iA€}:’zV: ihat’b.:fiie._:vre$pen<§en$g L'
No.4 has also filed a suit 3'9 0.3, PrLCivi1
Judge {Jr.D11.), Bella;-yy respect 0f the
property in question. iveentefition, learned
Single Judge fiat, as to Whether the
deceased"i9eS;3<§§;de1;§ifV'V§\1'e;'4;:Was« Vetxupant of the land a3;n:1
whetllervehe is of occupancy rights under the
pmvisiexzs {Sf "$1116 iA.s–V the"nV matter exclusively falls Within the
'~ :tl'3vg: vT:ébuna1 and not with the Civfi Court and
'thee contention and aiiowed the Writ petition and
x j Tiie oniy gonad urged in the Writ appeal isihat, the
tieeeaeed respondent No.4, who made an appfieafion for grant of
:V';}e;§'upancy rights, has no: produeeé any documents eefore the
4I."Tx-immai and the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the eiaiziu ef
mfizéiifled 'j_xi;ié.i:ter to the Land Tribunal for flesh enquiry.
the applicant, W WA;
-5,.
6. Learned Single Judge considering the eréier {)f the Land
Txibunal has found that, it is not :3 Speaking sréer; R31i_ e 1? of
me Ruies requires the Tzibunai to assign cogent .3;j’ia:;:;3er
reasons for its corzciusion. If the conclusion is ngiji s1;§§p:§rtt.§€i’–[b}*.
proper masusns, it requires re-consideration _ x
the only aimction that the laamed sing1;»;’J{:dge_h~a§ ~;s.{s–é.”1 e:.r3;’* is ta
z1.=2~c01:;.$i£16:r the matter af1’esh.”TV§f*fl;z1at 33- we’ them’
is any error in the order if thfi’ ..$»i11gie Jifiéigegfiwhich calls
for intexfezence. z « .
A3@v.€.a1::faii:~3′:s:.1}%€f}:! dismissed.
KNM/–