IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 7″‘ DAY Q1? JANIIAR? %2oé9% _ %
BEFORE:;’, % i ‘
THE HON’BLE MR. JUST’I§§E..AN;6;fJi) BY§&§E¥)IZ}:Y A %
WRIT PETITION No.4i§$<–4 QF %
BETWEEN: & A
Sml. Kamala Hcngs'u,._74 '~ –
W10 Late venkappé;Nasga&« "
Residing at I~';a'v駫«.Pa:i§§Jr Villésgs: V '
P. O. Vogga, Butimigal T:-:luk '5]' ..
PETITIONER
(By Sh1’i.V M.’ Su€ihakafL’Péti5..[§dyu.:aic)
V.
‘ _Rcprcs¢12t<f.d'bjz_its
A '— to Re:¥:e11ue
"Depattme£1f_;, M. 8. Buildings
Bfimgaiom-560 001
=T1;e mad Tribunal
% BafiI"'a1 (D. K)
Rcpw:-muted by its
._ Chairman
« Sri Narayana Kermtmnaya
Major, Sic. Lam Smt. Bhagimxhi
. 5
rights. Thtsrefortr, then: was no basis for the Tn'bunal £¢;_ have
rejected the documents as being doubtful as the
not come from the custody :31' the petitioner,
which art: in the custody of the '
agreement clearly indicating £hai:§J_41c:re §va.$ as lcnayatiy 'V *'
these items :31' land supported by z'cQci[V3'is–{§l:e2{riy':§§slabiishc<i
the case of the petitioner, iiaafairly and arbitrarily
negated. V if V
4. ¢%§;ea;¢%;¢3@po;:dum, on the other hand,
{would T’ cl;:2§’1VrW¥§¢in1iv.sit3n uf the applicant «-
Venkappfi’ suneey m>:s.15i’2 and 15:54
mc:as1;g’ing_2 an}! 36 cents nsspmstivcaly, lht: applicant
WaL=_fiU§ {:t§i£3._v:;tLi;;g nor was in occupation of the other items of
wcurded by the surveyor in his sialcmtmi
V -and record. Further, the caunlcntion that the certified
documents had been pmduced is also not correct, as it
oniy 3 photo-cupy of 111%’: tenancy agmcmcnl that was suughl.
Z