1
IR THE HIGH ceunw or KARNAIAKA Am ga§éAi¢RE2fl_
narnn THIS ram 27"*nmg pg aunt; §¢fi§Vn x
pR£ssN§;A "' 1" 'V
was HOR'BLE MR. JU3:xgE fipg} gafificggmai
THE HON'BLE Eh? JU$E3C% RE§I fiALIMATH
WRIT.A2PaAL~§¢,éa$q:§oQ§}{iR>
BETWEER: 4«.' % :V v ' "" "
Sree Kc$an&$i3a§aa§$@$?§éfi§ffi,
Bazat"Rca¢; Cfiikkaballaéfir,
By its Managin§2Pxe§id&nt,
chikkaba;1apu:; '-ua_:_ .. APPELLANT
(By $fiwbca§eASfiiz§"Gqa1aiah)
R_iQ"Ehe,Lafid ?r1bmnal,
~.éCh1kkaba1lépur Town,
'.Chikka§a$1apur.
'.2. E VDKrishnappa 3/o Eliammagari
'"xTVenk3taramanaypa, major,
'"jr3)»Bfilachandxa, 35 years,
S/a V.Narayanaswamy,
7 R/at Bajaneane Road,
Chikballapur Tgwn,
Kola: Dist.
2
4. Dayananda, 30 years,
S/o V.Narayanawamy,
R/at Bajanamane Road, ,w.
Chikballapur Tawn, "
Kolar Dist.
5. Sridara, 28 years,' '
S/o'?.Harayanaswamy, ,
R/at Bajanemane_Road,,m:a_*
Chikballapur To#n;_ {' ~
Kolar flist. '"*-.'
6. Venkatlakshmama}"55@fi¢a§g, -~ E
W/o V.Razayagaswamy;* "A -=-f
R/at Ba3»aw'iane%1?»~*>a~a%.
Chikbailapfi; Tewn " '
Kola; §isfi;t4_ 3"
7. C.V}srin£vé$afip§"a}a'
Yellammgari7VenkaEaramanappa,
Maj¢x;aRfat"Bajan¢$ane Road,
Chikbal1apux_Tofinf
"BV$}=K£is$naa D/o K.Venkataramanappa,
*Q¢vafiahai$i Town.
1"_Sin¢é fig¢§ased by her L.Rs.
VV_ a} fihim§hfl$ s/o Lakshmanna,
65"years,
'".'7§} §$garaju sfo Lakshmanna,
I 55 years,
:i"cj Krishnappa s/o Lakshmanna,
50 years,
R/at Melina fhotagalu,
3
Op: Railway Station,
Akkflpete, Devanahalli
'I.'own--562 100 .
db Sharadama d/Q Krishnama, ;
since deceased by her L.Rs;_"
d--(1) Kxishnappa nusbanfi gr
Sharadamma, 48 yeatgg
dr(2) Venugcpal s2§xKriShfiafip§;
26 years, "'A'L"&%w®rw6mmmwm,
dwcs) K,pu$npa ¢}§.irzsnnappa,
20 years, ' 'V
,_ drifii K.Leé1a#athi d/0 Krishnapa,
"years I.. ..... ..
'?,"Ai1 ér§Vfi[¢;u¢.254,
=D¢dda'Bajafiemane Road,
Chikkabgllapura Tawn.
=«_*9. Ghinfiamma d/0 K.Venkataramanagpa,
_'Vgx"*Major, R/0 Kamaghatta,
<j"_=_$§ddaba11apur Tq.
=._;CL Narayanamma d/o K.Venkataramanappa,
Major,R/0 Nellimarada village,
Sidlaghatta Tawn.
4
11. Ramakk:-1 a, 9
Major, R/o }€o._5'7(3)V, NZIQII Cxoss,
Cubbonpet , }3anga.lore';v-'22";-M, ;..,
(Smt.Asha M.Kumbar,gerimp%E, ECG? £or~fi--1)
(Advocate sari.C.B;..SV:.*§.nivr;;:3z:1z_"£Ozr_R-2, 7-12}
(R-3-6, 8(a) to (d) --;_6'
-. an an-;--.._ -1', -
This "§..;s"'"_:E;il¢:~d under: Sec.4 of
The Karnataka. ta set aside the
order pa§'s,e.d'I;: H.56=41/2002 dated
1o.1o.2ooz;V * " "" '
*i'h:i.s'*aAppea4_ * V "lng on for final hearing
this day, I4i3\.§fJ?Jz~'iAT1*_I 5". delivered the fcallowing:
JUDGMENT
” and correctness 9f the order
‘», passa&_in WP NOn5541/2092 dated 19.10.2902 15
in question in this appeal.
‘2! The fiacsts of this case are as hereunder:
” 2w15 acres of land. situated. in Sy.No.145 af
$5/.
5
Vapasandra village in Czlmikkaballapuf 4′
the subjecst matter before; wthg A T
cnikzscabalxapur. This 1:’:;n<;+é_A_" * ';:i.5Z"*
appellant»–deity sme
one Yellammagazzi . filed.
Form No. ‘7 in respeat
of 2-16 acgrgs ; which
ap;:»1icat:’:mz;i’v on the ground
that filed in Form. No.7
had. iigzot’ by the applicant.
Thereaftatf; _ ” also filed an
app3§’;£.’%.:a~tionV.’ ” ____ Eorm No. 7 claimiizg occupancy
.’z:::i.«:_;:it_V1t;s:’:i,rz: ‘:::%e_ts;~..~e:-:.:*I: of the very same land. ttfhe
xé.1.*;§1.i’c}é.’tion came to be rejected. on the
V .V grc§iind*–V:Ath§:t Farm Na. ‘2 filled by the children of
K was belated. Rejection of
– No. 7 :E Venkataramanappa. was not
T “‘cfi1estion& by Venkataramanappa during his life
time. Being aggrieved by the rejection. of the
6*”
6
application, children of
writ petition in WP No.5641»/.2002′:”b”‘<'~ V'
single Judge after: hearing time
the eonclusion that Fdit:m__ 'hot " V
been signed by not
have been rejected. :§;:u3;ab3.e defect
and not an irj_c:a1:;abj.e' writ
petition ie.» to the
trib1z:1a.1__'t9V' in favour of
the .. 'whit petition to the
land in <«:;xzes*1:;i.<S'n_ issue Form No.10 in
fieveur. Aerder is called in question
this t
'Wet hasreétzearci the counsel for the parties.
AA 2-:::;.s&pa.1aia:n counsel far the appellant
that the learned single Judge has
génmitted a serious error in not can.-eidering
"«._3ti1e fact that Fom No.7 alleged to have been
61/.
‘3’
filed by Venkataramanappa had not ‘.
by him and it was not fi1e:_c.1…by
to him, Vankataramanappa
resident of the villag*é_””~§incé Vhe_vf§aA:i’:._;’i*a£tt thé’
village on the date of _£ij1i_ng__ 1:’o.:’:-ta-.1§c>V,,9§7 he was
not at all in tne’~-5111353: whereabouts
not known to Therefore he
8/L5
contends _.t1§z.a,t5:1?o1ii1flip. 1? not have been
signed_ since it was not
filedtby. cxantends that
even if’v1é:a.if:ed:°’_.single Judge was held that
fixigg M F63::#:V3~¥oA.:7 withcvut his signature is a
5_c.u;f;a, he could not have directed the
oacupancy rights in favour of
nis”””‘chvi::i.¢s:é7en and to issue ?orm No.10 without
. g:’ivingVV”‘an cppcrtunity for both the parties to
lat” evidenae. He further submits that what
was laased. once upon a. time in favour of
Q. Venkataramanappa was only 1»-~32 acres but the
(‘V
8
learned single Judge has directed to grant
occupancy rights to an extent of 2»-‘Q.:~.~a–.’
on these three grczuncts, he req11es_ts’V_”_:
to allow the appeal and set
passed by the learned single
5. ?er contra, counsel.__”‘~:§or V’
submits that the’§”i;_3gle””s3!1ci::ge was
justified in directing ltliie’ “n33. to grant
occupa.p;é.§¥l’ Vef 2-16 acxes since
deceased, was a tenant of the
land and lthe’refio1A:e_» fie contends that no error
“”3′.:_as by the learned single Judge
£n1;e*z£;s.v:eVe_’wj.th the order.
_6. “”;;kf1:,ej:’=”hearing the parties, the only point
Vdeensidered by us in this appeal is
-1_§1*zether the learned single Judge has ::cma::t:E.tted
:’_4″‘a:~z’lVerror in order to interfere with his order.
&/
10
children would give rise to a doubt in”*Vreg’:_fard
to the genuinity of filing of fienm NQQ7 ifi fin -_
name o:f:’ Venkataramanappa.
questions are not at all
Rearmed single Judge withcut
these crucial points, sizigle:v_’AJ1§fc1ge has
directed the eccfupancy rights
in favour of _t’2′;§_e ¥%:ti’t*:;i§getif§:.ie§i. extent of
2-16 acres-V Venjrataraéhahefiea was claiming
only V1″32 vi$¢r§S§”er=’Cbnsidering- all these
discrepaficies we.’ ” ofi the opinion that
learx§;e;<1i'~sin<g,u1e.R{J'ud.ge has committed. an error in
a1v1oy;:L:ig«.M writ petition and issuing the
grant occupancy rights without
–V furtherra ccnducting any enquiry anti to issue
i*”}scxm_N¢L1o.
In the result, this appeal is allowed.
Liflrar of the learned single Judge in we
Nc:.564.’i./2002 dated 10.10.2002 is hereby eat
32/
parties .
I 1
aside .
Tribunal , Cfizikkaballapurrw
consideration . Land €I’1;*:x’.brz1:’:%1aJ;:’:,§ j ” ,_
is hereby directed tcé ._ f:i_r1d “<:u_t' x«%h:e'i:iik=513 ' Forxti
No. 7 said to haV7e– ' 'vv..-'..':i…:!..';'-=.~ci by
Venkataramanappa by him and
then c:ons;i.cLer_*t__he q£AA.V:'vVs;eri§:ag£:?;;¥raznanappa for
grant 015 _. Waczcordance with
law af to both the
sdl-ifi
Iudge
sdl-3
judge
R/éeéfséx
Matter is remanded 4_
:f4 v£xéah