IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 31sTDAY OF' JULY 2009 BEFORE' THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIcE;§_s BQPAN:j§A "~f _ WRIT PE'I'I'I'ION NO. 1 x 193/ izooéz J;1<;I..4R-,-R:«:g}~ BETWEEN: KIELMPAMMANM @ NAGAMMA W/() G S DORESWAMAIAH. AGED ABOUT' 50 YEARS ; " R/O SHANKARAPURA EXTENSEO-N. CHAMARAJANAGARA " DIST:CHAMARAJANA(}A§§A _ PETITIONER (BY M/s:'qA¥AKiI§;mR:' »P;»'J:'u§E;'._!aSSSOC1A'i'ES, Sr. COUNSEL) AND : =1' _ _'j'f':a;3;4_fm:%PUTé*"cs;-MMISSIONER ._ LCHANEXRAJANAGARA DISTRICT ' . ''CHA,MAbRAJANAGARA 2 * . ' *rHEAé§s;1®ANT COMNHSSIONER "~KC}Li;£GALA SUB--I}IViSlON KQLLEGALA n j CHAP4EARAJANAGARA DISTR¥C'I' - TAHSILDAR CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA av fl 2. e The peeeener claims that enuany; is petitioner had acquired the right to the preper-'-fit" " WILL. However, the said WILL such the parties were before " O.S.No.37/ 3971. In the said the petitie::1ei~--,'iiere:i:1 was the plaintifi While the father respondent
was the second defendaxditd. pertdency of the
said suit, the p;ar?:i.e’s.eI1§tez~ed.:’..i11t0″‘a’.jeomijromise. Out of
the propertites -the issue relates only with
regard /4 measuring 20
V g11I1ta4sj.’of_ V” In the said compromise, it was
vpetitieeer herein viz., the plaintiff would
of the said land, while the second
A Vt .defeIida11’t: the -father er the 5m respondent would be
“12 gumas out of said Sy.No.33’7/4. The said
.jéeo’1t1’promise was accepted and a compromise decree
V passed by the Civitgourt on 5.8.1975. Pursuant to
5
4. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is
that the Deputy Commissioner was not justified_
rejecting the revision only on the gound that A’
revenue entry in {NH 21/94»-95 related to ”
in Sy.No.337/3 and its sub-numbers,’ while
relating to Sy.No.337/4. Though z§s=§di1i2:r:§§1ttd%%tdi
survey numbers as existing
and the judgment and decree” as
evident on the face of it, of the
petitioner isA”t£*;at’:*.%su.tiseque11t1y on enquity, the
petifionerdhestt of the fact that an
V extent; the S5;-.N.o.337′ was acquired by the
V. .iforvfo:rming the extension of the village. in
erehce is made to the documents at H1 to
V’ H4. in the said acquisition for formation of the
H K A44″§f¢t}i;1ge<, the. sub numbers in Sy.No.337 was deleted from
V' records. It is in that context, the earlier
T "-«:S'y[No.337/4 was assigxed the new 160.337] 3 since the
$
.-
4′.
delay, if the third respondent is directed to o
it is appropriate that the parties
Tahsfldar without further notic¢,- the _
Hence t}:1e petitioner and the V5″? resféoiident V
to appear before the third on
17.3.2009 as the {vimout
further notice along this order.
Thereafter, the Tahsildar
and complete the enfire as
possible. V% ‘H
In terms ofthe eeofie, the ciisposed
o:’_ No order as to§;:o”s$s. V V V ‘
3§f§
»~ Judi?