High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Bhavani vs Smt Lakshmi on 20 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Bhavani vs Smt Lakshmi on 20 March, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAR'NA'1"AI(A AT BANGALORE '.

Dated this the 20"' day ofMarch, zoos  " '

Before
21%;. ..0N'.B.LE i,-.ta:.,Lr..9--_.I5.' H.V"r_:._n;4 ,_.., _
  4.-2 /2:233 -'«. £39 I-462/2!}e?§ {LR}

Between:

Smt Bhavani, 75 yrs

W/o Seshappa Saphalya

R./near Kamataka Bank

Thokottu, U1lalVillage_ VVVV      --.
MangaloreTa1uI< _     _  ~  " Petitioner '
(By Sri Pundikai i'sh':yai;.Ei3)at   if V 
And:  ____   :7 V' .. . .

1. sxi-at Lasssiugii;-'::2V.yi~s, D:'o:K.~isfmzimma

R/a Mahalinga Ccfnpoiind  

Near Atnbedkaf'--NIé'idan, hifqkottu
Ulla} vflIage,"Ma;igalc---fir Taluk

" '~  ._ '3Smt._i}cc1a, 47Ajirs,v V-IA?9'K1ishnamma

_ Pu/a"1\3Eahaiinga Compmind
' =Nea1f Ambgdkar Maidan, Tokottu
 U'iia1:"v.«"'g}lage,.Mar.galo:e Taluk

__ Land  Iviarngai"-e
By its; Chairman
Talul: Office Buildings, Mangaiore

SJ.)

V'   v  'State of Karnataka - by its Revenue Secretary

"M 8 Building Bangalore 1 Respondents

~ j ‘ 43,5,’ s1«.iva_-uindappai (312 for 123-4;
= Sri M Viswajith Rai, Adv. for R1-2)

Hg__/

This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1, CPCT»-praying to
review the order dated 29.1.2008 in WP 1462/2008. d . .,

I-is a VF:-:1′ run:-1:15 nr –

This Review Petition coming on for Orders this theirnatiefl

HIV J.iJ’.I.I\lVVl.Il5n

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the cotinsehreieresenting the

respondents.

extent of 4 eente the review .petitio_ner isfisaid’ possession as ‘
As per the suhmission. made hyitlte’ gzetitioner-‘si counsei, they have removed the
tiles to carry otit’ the reflairs -end at that juncture the impugned order came to

be passed’ eyrparte. ‘

In;–the’vioircmnetaitcee, the review petition is allowed. WP 1462:2003

deeided is restored on Board and the order passed therein is

‘petitioner herein. As per the su’ornitt*d Dy” th

modified as 11.-titer;

A it .n pa-_a. 5 -f t._e _-l.’1|:I_’ i_- WP 1462I__(_)08, the 1″ respondent therein was

e ‘ t 91 ‘ ‘ ‘
(nu W £6 rnarruatn stantsnuo The 1 ran-,,.o:~.dent t.’:ere.n is. …e l’..-E’l9’J”.”

– _ I…

the survey, as on the date, the 1%’ respondent (review petitioner) is in

Jkr

U:

Sdh

possession of the house as per the area mentioned in the sketch to thetipextent of

4 cents. In the circumstances, it is ordered the possession of the 1?

shall continue till the order is passed by the Land Tribunal V’ .

law. Further, it is needless to say that since tiieii-eview ‘petitioneiiieiiigiithel ‘1″ b

–_pondent in the said writ petition is said to he.in’possession, she ‘wouiii~

this cm dineetmg ‘h’ L–e “H-1–.–.-:V.:.~.e–;a-~ ~ ~’– -we – ~ –*«-A

with law would sustain. contentio1:_sv}ere to be urgea before the

Land Tribunal.

thehwfitiipetitioie modified. Review petition is

disposed es’.

Iuciga