..1..
IN THE HIGH comm OF KARNATAKA AT %
omen mrs Tl-E 2*" my OF DECEMBEfi':_f2Gé$.
BEFORE :
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE MGHANv4SkiAN'TA§$1fi.$}()Uf§;{.\i§v
wan PETITION No.1a'g42/zms(g2;' _
Smt.Sb.aradannna " «
A/0 Late Ramachandmbhfilfw . V
Agcci about 83 _, I
Tc11g'inakcrcVi1];3.£;;c _. , 4, '
Begavalfi post ' >_ ,. x H .
Shimoga n;«m»:».;eit:;";; .. Petitioner
( By 31-: am = %
ME:
1:' .AssiSi:ai1t. Clemmissibfiér
V_ . Shimoga Su.b'--'{')ivision
~ V' A. "
1 2.
_ Mufiivrhixda Maiha
Mulabagiiu, Thirthaha1fi'I'aluk
" " Qhigaoga District. .. Respondents
R.B.Satyana:rayana Singh, HCGP for R–~1 )
–<–<G
as
-3-
course of enquiry, the petitioner did not press his
application in refipect of Survey NGJI4
Ccnmquently, the Tribunal considered
filed by the peuuoner in Form
granted occupancy rights to é§xt e11i;
gnntas in Survey No.110. % the med %
an application in Form (if the
Kamataka Land Reformg “ix:-. -gfmrvey No.10’7,
measuring 1 village
of iaippiication came to be
dismissfjtiu “by below on the yound
that the petitioner in Form No.7 is
rejected _V by A”T19i’B i1nal and thcrefnre, he is not
J t13~.f1§eé;’a1:1;§th£3r’Vapplimtion in Fcm11 No.’7A before
under 3E:Cti()1″1 77–A of the
V Referms Act.
A 3. ” ,’fhe crders at” the authorities bclmv cannot be
It is clear from the language fimployed in sub-
1/’
‘V*£>kf§bs:1
-5-
The crsrder passed by the Asfistant Coxnnzissioner,
Shimoga Sub~DivisioI1, Shimoga dated 27.7
Axlnexure-YB’ and the order 3
Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore,-.j.I1
dated 2 1»: February 2006, Vida %are%quashec1.
The matter is At;,A*v:1Vt: afitfififity for
disposal of the in Form
No.7-A on the questian of
13;1aiI1ta3’I1z{;1_3_i1ii:33.$l*1&;a_g;1;’.’i; i}ott:”i§e’– gaminto once again.
writ; .p§=:t:iti<3fiV of accarding1y.
AA …..
Judge