"IN TI-IE HIGH COURT 0}? KARNATAKA A-T BANGALORE '.
Dated this the 9"' day of Apfu, 'mos
Before
my HON'BLE MR Jvsncg
'}'.._
Pf-355559.': 3 2'' Earn? (L.
aouiyv
alumna' c
any rrwluoa
3...; 17...... nA_.__L:.,_ 1:11, n___| A1.,,,_,
' D1111 1590303 i)C(]I.l6l.I'£l WWO Paul
(By Sri s KAchmg,_ra_,' =:
Ssyrs, -Kamparottu House;
Moocibeiie-Fast, fieiic-Viilage ' '
Udupi Taluk & District
L' '. -Petitioner
I .An.a.i:
----r
1. 7'f??}*£s
W439 Krishna'.-'fihatiiiii, Thain.-i__l * ~
_Befl:; V Iviaézibéiie i?€rsiV.\.
UdupixTalu3k &'Di§trict. '
T f13e'ta1jI)~s})uza,: 45"yrs '
- 'Beaedict xD'Souia;"¢i2Vyrs
4. 'j * A V Heta:i1a1:..D"Spuza, .40'yrs
Aii'a§e~.ghjEii1eh of'Nico1as D'S.ouza %
A V "R10 Bel}: Village, Post Moodbelle -
-. Udnipi Taiuk :5: Disuiot
1 IénetiusD*souza,49m
Ligory D'Souza, 423/rs
_'Bo_th are children of Emila I_)'Souza
'I'! 1.. 11-11- T F!I'I._._A I I.__,IL ;'II_ TI- -4
IVU-D5115 Vllliigli, lV.l(_lUflUUl_IU 1'0!"
% Udupi Taluk 3: Djstgict
-.1
-1
D
3
:1.
--§
3 .
=
3
E.
‘II
-1
5
NC
8. State of Karnataka —- by its Secretary
Revenue Department, M S Euiltiing ‘= -. b g =
Bangalore 1 V _:. Respondents
(By Sri A Anand Shetty, Adv. for R1-2; A It it it A
Sn Nadiga Shivanandappa, GP for R’7.~§)
This Writ Pentren gs tile Ae.t.226!22’?~.ef Censttt-.:.:on
praying to quash the ordeniiated 12, 1.931}; annexure D; 4.6.19 1 _
annexure E and order dated 12Z.’6.i931_ _
CL
Writ Petition coining this day, the Court made
the following: 0 i “‘ .» ” i
11’:-.
F granting ocetlpaney rights’ irzfltvour of the contesting respondefis in so is; as
Syfik;-.230 to the extent__ofT 1.50 acres, 1.00 acre and 44 cents 0″ Moodbeile
0 jii1!sgeef”Udu:pi”Taluk.
‘ J’E{esr’dthe counsel for the petitioner, counsel representing the contesting
.0 respondent and the Government Pleader.
As per the submission of petitioner’s counsel, originally he had been
granted with occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.230 to an extent of 2.30
tr”
LA)
acres out of the total extent of 9.44 acres. It is his specific case that,l,_ were
rival claimants and although the contesting respondents ..the
property in Sy.No.230, the Land Tribunal granted»’l”oecu,ofaneyl
Aggrieved, petitioner is before this Court.
‘ ‘ +1.;..I A …1..:,,1…..,,.’… …i_.i’.. ..
..ccu.m..g tu use fiflfltifififif, um-,1″‘”iu will 11 Was: 3; £16
s”‘o’eet “rr”tter- ‘f “ant bj” *”e. subseq’aentV_’or(ier_ in fatlome of the contesting
respondent.
1981. However, the
petitioner has a lapse of twenty five years.
Further rnore, noted»i’s’,e_tl”1e-.1and~l in Sy.No.23(} measures 9.44 acres and
aecordingltowthle after conducting mahazar and having
found;theyV possession to some extent, though they have not
‘elairnetl tlie”larid~ oversiglxt, as a matter of fact finding the Tribunal based on
, ‘fit is an undisputed fact that the property in Sy.No.230 measures 9.44
aejres. Based on the fact of possession and also on the mahazar conducted, the
Land Tribunal by the orders at annexures D, E and F granted occupancy rights
.t…/
to the extent the claimants were said to be in possession. Might éhevithtereis no
such claim in Form 7, but the same cannot
rt’ .., , .I,l1…. …;:fledt._’ 14′: -..-: _v_. _i_
11 time is any ‘_ff7in’EI:§’)]Zti!{l’g.”I_i.I’€iIl,’iit6~p6iiii.OIi.6I’ ‘
shouid have approached this Court weli withinitirne’ to seek. rraodifieatiofn of the a
order of the Tribunal. However, to safefiiiard the interest oetitioner,
he intends to get the land the lfeofityiitiommissioner
or the concerned authorities to Though there is an
order in favour of are mentioned, the
boundaries would toftliiat. the petitioner would be entitled
and he cannot. ordier.ioassed.;1 favour of the respondent though
there is no-.sue’h ‘eiairnniadeiin F’onii~–7§
With theiiiahovea ohservatiori, petition is disposed of.
Sci]
Judge