THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA', B;iNG;#fiiIg{§RE_'_..V %
DATED THE 24TH DAY OF"Mf%R"C§H '
BEF'(}'VI§E..V_ A
THE HQNBLI": MR. JusTIQE i;;NARAYANAsWALqY
wnrr PETITIO2§;'"If(;}A 193.3e5'% (LR)
BETWEEN
1 SH}?! NARAYANA~':SHETTYV ' '
S/C) SUBBASKYSA " §
AGED--ABOUT 65 'YEARS, '
KEL;xG1NA"t.:s:ALEKEnU.HOUSE,
PERAD'? VILLAGE. - " %.
BELTHANGAISY 'mL1}§<:,' 'it).K.
A PETT£'l'IOI'~¥ER
(By SR: §{'C_HAN13RANATHARIGA : ADVOCATE )
1 S-'.i'_A'I'E K£J:2NATAI{A
B¥'1'rs SECRETARY,
REVE§3IUF;'DEPAR'FMENT,
M.S.~BU:II..DING,
A AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
% if .gA1sIGAL0RE~0 1.
'mm CHAIRMAN
V' TRIBUNAL
BE'LTHANGADI- 574 214, D.K.
"\
3 SM'? GIRIJA SI-IE"I"I'Y
w/0 JANARDHANA SHETFY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT KELAGINA MALEKEDU HOUSE,
PERADY VELLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK, 13.1»: V M
'R327-3PER
DT.21.12.81. VIDE ANI\I_~D, $'0'--FAR GRANTING
GCCUPANCY RIG!-IT OVER .sY.No.V37213 (P1) TO THE
EXTENT OF 0.84, CENTS. * * = _
THIS WP COMING ON"F C)R:'H.E.AR' %THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE Tm: 1§§0L1.owmG: A'
%
Petitibixer the order passed by the Land
__AI1I'1€X1lI'C-D dated 21/12/1981. The
gmev' bf fahéigitioner is that the land to the extent of
(3.84 céf;tfs""V.§zi Sy.}'iIo. 37/28 P1 situated Peradi Village,
District was granted in favour of the
by its order dated Annexure-A 15/ 11/77 by the
A A>I};=2.fn.'€vi"'I':'ib1n1.aI Be . Without noticing the same, the
same extent of land has been ganted in favour of the 3"!
respondent on 21/ 12/1981. Hence it is 'the
petitioners counsel that the order of the land
from nozn-appiication of mind. He I1é*s”1nade i
as per Armexure-E to the to
corrections in the light of the But’
the said representation ha§*.*at1_ot
2. The Iearned ftqr foicymspondent No.3
submitted that favour of the
petitioner.
3. j.’i’he Ieam’u” for the Government submitted
the issued to the Land Tribunal,
.&s;.-mu: the corrections in the onzier as per
V”,.ex°’Annexu:’*€ ” 333; A
‘4;»,_I the arguments made by both tim parfies.
iegibttiissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
V A tiaigfitlie occupancy right in ms%t of above land was granted
in favour of the petitioner on 15/ 1 1/ ’77. HOW€_§?61’«’
extent of iand was ganted in flavour of
Even after the representation ;_t.!V”zc ‘”
Tribunal has failed to carry ougme .
5. Under the that same
extent of land canI1Q_t be as well
as respondent right in faveur
of the petif:ion€c.a:jVi§.” of Respondent no. 3.
Hence the order to-‘the Sy.No. 37
QBPI extent of 84 sentsim No.3 canmt
be sustaifledf. V’ .
in relates to Sy.No. 37/ QBPI.
sdl-
Judge