Bctwacn:
' _
K5. Murthy
AA Sjo lzitf: M.
__ A . é VA§;::.d about38ycars
._ .. M
V' ' Agodaibout36ycars
-1-
IN THE HIGH coum or KARNATAKA
DATED THIS THE 30?" t>A»vo;= aT\Ayr T & '
365% ' é 1 T
THE HON'BLE m2.JusTIcE
WRIT P§TI1'IQ_fl.
1. Smt.
W/o Iatem.
Aged ahdigt a
2. Smt, ParW """ " .
E)/o';l_ate_ M.' .. T
Aged 'about
3. Smt. T_
l),€o"3:szt£ M. Saxznappaa
ggabcnt 42
. 9/9 iaie.ga..'T$ammppa
' about 40 years
HTZS/o late M. Sonnappa
him'
maasedby his 1.1%.,
7 . Smt. Manjula
D/o late M. Sonnappa
Aged about 34 years
8. %t. Anmtgamma
We !ate M. Sonnappa
Ag about32 years
Allarei?/a KaIkereVillam
mumHoh§
Bangph "" " "
I4;G.'-Roag;i, F» "
2. _ er
V ¥'~I¢3x'til Sub--D'nr'1a50n
- X $».r5uthTa}uk
Kc}. B
. L sfo Chikka
T (a) Patnlappa
S] 0 Chikka Muddappa
Aged about 4-6 yams
(11)) Siddappa
S10 Chikka Muddappa
Aged about 36 years
(C) Submmani
Sfo Chfkka Muddappa
Aged wont '58 years
(d) Nasaraja
S] 0 Chikka Mtxddappa
(c) Somaaekham ~. V
S/0 Chikka Muddayrpa
Aged 9134?". 40 k
An aéie
KR. Puranégyflobii-. = 5 ..
"Respondents
(By s:i”‘aés.v,’_ SD: R1 to R3;
Sri G.B. M_a1:ju1xz2t13;<)'sdf9;',._ for R4[a to cl)
. T?-his writ Fétitbn is mad under Articles 225 as 227 ofthe
» Cfinsfitution Gf _lndi.a praying to quash the antler passed by the
First Tsigaponczgnz in Revision Petition No. 101/02-93 dated 10-
Ahncxlne-A and the oxdcr dated 26-6a 1999 viie
Aixgexuxa-B':–.ai1d ctc.,
"Tiiis Writ Petition comm' g on for pielnn1na1'y' ' lleanng' in
"'.E§:'goup this day, the Court made the tblkvwing :
9.8.21.8
The land in qumtion is a portion of Survey 930.564 of
Kalkem village, Krishnaxajapuram Hobli, Bangalon-. East Taiuk
V/"
is filed by the petitioners questioning the onieif ‘ I’ V
ikputy Cbmmisajoxzcr, Bangalore Disu*k:’_L,. Z
Annexure-‘A’ dated 1.0. 10.2005 hv
Special Tahsildar, Baz1g9Aorc>T.$outl§l’–.T§§iuk,
dated 26.6. 1999.
2. Heard the Qégmpamg on behalf of
both parties
3. at” 0f the com by Sri
appearing on behaif of
mspofidgnt rights are granted in iiweur of
Chikka on 31.12.1964 and said Chikka
_ A’ A’ wrgqne else than the father af mspondcnt
rights are grammci under the pmviaiorm
(2?é;’sonal. and Miaoeiiatmo’us) mama Abolition Act,
‘ Vpun’:hase made by Semnappa ( from whom the
” k peiétiorlvésrs title) was on 22.2.1955 i.e., subsequent to the
of ocxtupamty rights in flavour of father of respondent
” “No.4. In this View of the matter, the authtmiiiea below, mare
particularly. the Deputy Commissioner has concluded that the
r/5
-7-
vendor of Sonnappa did not have valid title to
inasmuch aa, prior to the date of sale,
were granted in flavour of ihtileif’ iafxd ”
consequently, the I.)eputy Ckgxnmiséicyiiar hcki.
respondent No.4.
4. Sri Chm1d1~eޤi:;jk3f;. L. appealing on
behalf of pctiuoxxcm rights am not
granted granted in respect of
the iemzfigzgrsga which ia retained by
father submits that the total extent of
the odd and out 0f the said total
ex.t¢:n:,.’ af_ 6 e41.k:.-&”t.:s;”if§}ati)§i+.r msymxxdent No.4 had (mly said 4
fig-;;n”ta,3 mtaillml atmul. 2 acw. .3. Aocmtiing ix)
‘V rights are g,I’8IHI’5(i over the land which is
of rvespondcxlt No.4 and that the occupancy
‘-<.__ '~t'igb.ts not glantcd in respect of the land which is sold by
mspondenl, No.4 in the year 1950.
The said contention cannot be aooepmd at this stage,
inasmuch 83, the ocsoupmtty rights are granted! in favnur of
V/5
.3-
father of respondent No.4 in respect of 3 acres aéfisier
Mysore (Personal and Misoclianaons) 3
by the order dated 31.12.1964, L
rights are granted in excsc:ss o_f
respondent NQ4. It is not ‘*r:ase” Of tfiétt
ihther of respondent Nii.4 of land in
Survey No.564 without f’Ei’:’::§c of the partim
is that flu: rt-_3»f acres 6 guntas of
land and “2. acres. More so, such
“13:-)(‘;”–.7:f’. (‘,’,~!:-‘vi.’I_I’;li§i”.”§:t}£i6Cidt3(i in the pitxxaedings
like tiiag 13:) of the Karmaiaka Land
Revenue the name of petitioners cannot be
o1tzl~e’~;ed1t:1 be efitgrggi the tmnamlfip column, inasmuch as,
,A gr-:’jx;:aVa materials disciose that the occupancy rights
._iI’sg i¥.:v<,r'ur of father of rcspondeul No.4 to an extnnt
of aLfi'i§§1 guntas over the land in question.
5. However. it is to be noted here itself that the deceased
(ptedccaesscxr of petitioners hezein} had filed
£§).S.No.26′?9/ 1.9958. beftme the: Civil Gmm; against the father of
r\/S
-9-
respondent No.4 ibzr injunction. The said suifis’
15.2.1995 :33 per the judwent Vida Ann-ex: cf
the Civil Court is confirmed in m«’,§;..Nq§.434;.19e95– by~..
as per the judmcnt dated
‘I’h’us. it is ckzar that the Civii ‘VC;;:}.i;1;1’as have
decided that the Bf 2 Acres 6
gunitas of Sy.N=0.Ei64 anfii No.4 is xcsunilxed
from. di$turb_§n§;: In View of
the same, am to be entered only in
(Jelumn As occupancy fights at
i’1’?.L No.4, his name has to be
cntcmd the Record of Righm. Aocomlingly,
, &_ fhgfgxllgéhixgg 0filt:;r.made ;
‘ ” onier passed by the Deputy
Bangalore Disfmct, Bangakmz, wide A1mcxurc-
‘A’ daagi 10.10.2005 is modified with a clarification and
that the name of the petitioners be entered in Column
V. [€0.12 and the name of zespondtmi: No.4 be entered in Column
No.9 of the Reomtrl of Rights in rtzspccct of the property in
V/>
-19-
question. It is open tbr the parties to approach the__ _
forum, if need be, for appzvopriatc refiefs on .
Writ petition is disposed ofmfixgfiigtfi.