IN THE HIGH comrr or KARNATAKA, ~
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAYQF._AUC§UST; --'j3Ci08_;_ A '
BEFORE} X
THE HON'BLE MR.JUs*1i<jE;
WRIT PE'I'I'1'I()_N msvédgzoos {LB;vRE$§)
SRIBMGOV1N£§.A':'REI1§_DY»',:'..«: ,
3/0 LATE M:;.;vIswAMY'.Ri2'.DDY ;, A
ALIAS MUmsv:AMA?:Aa'~-,,;T--:--.%_ _
A6233 mom' 4e4$'§{'EAi2S ._ V
Binafiheufipszv_VILLAa--E'AND Pcér
ATTIBELEI+iC1BL£';'-ANEKAL'"--- % %
BANGALORE UI2_B'mi§.56--r.3_Io7-"
* " ; ...PE'I'ITIONER
(By. :12 NA"I¢A$fANA; ADV )
2 THE 'PANCHAYAT SECRETARY
B§'DAR'AGUPPE GRAM PANCHAYAT
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL
.A _ BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
' '=--._P.c. 552107
'2" N THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
T' ANEKA}... PANCHAYAT OFFICE
ANEKAL
3 THE CHIEF' EXECUTIVE QFFICER
ZILLA ?,ANCHAYA'i', KRUSHI BHAVAN
);r&
-2-
KITTUR RAN} C-HENNAMMA CIRCLE
BANGALORE
4 B C RAMACHANDRA REDDY .-
S/0 LATE CHINNAPPA REBDY
ALIAS CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT' so."YE} x12é;»
R/O BIDARAGUP¥'E v1LLAG:=:_;
AND POST, ATTIBELE H<)BL,1=,
ANEKAL, BANGALORE 552 107- A -
5 B C MUN! REDDY ( Foob.1NsPECi'0R"*)T
ANEKAL TAHSILDAR OFFICE
S/O LATE CHINNARPA REQBY ALIAS CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43"YE;AR?s ; j x
R/AT BIDARAGUPPE vH;.LAGE..A'N.I3.
A?r1aEL13:.HoBL1A,'VAm:KAL4 " '
BANGALGRE_' 55:.;i:_10:I '
6 B c: KRISHNia!I%EDDY M ~
S/O LATE CI~11N'r:£;P_PA REED?"
ALIAS CHINNAPPA V. "
AGED ABO._U'i' 43 YEARS
R/Afr BIDARAGUPPE VILLAGE AND 13051'
_ ATtm3EL3 HOB'!-J, VANEKAL
. BANGALGRE 552167"
7 H,'NA{;;a;?p~.a."
S/'Q%~LA'r§:'1A»§iQNNAPPA
AGED ABO{§'i' 60 YEARS
_ MAJOR ' "
R/ATBIDARAGUPPE VILLAGE AND POST
v * A.'£'TIBI§';LE: HOBLI, ANEKAL
BANGALORE 552107
RESPONDENTS
V A VT .(i Biy~$r:; RAVI L VAIDYA, ADV FOR R4 T0 R7 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
DAND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INBIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R} TO PASS NECESSARY ORFJERS ON ANX-C
33*
-3-
REPRESENTATION DT. 29.04.2005 GIVEDS’ 7 0-
PETITIONER AND EZTC.
THIS WRIT PETFFION com-e{o0 ‘:?oR PRe_L:1\g11_NARY’«
I~IEARiNG (B-GROUP) THIS DAY, ‘I71-I’i:’;’_”C:OURF”MF1I)E°’TH’E{
FOLLOWING: T. A ._
The dispute over’… in
respect of Kafieshumefi’ No.9, House
No.32, situat_;ed %s¢0Ia_§;;¢; Attibele Hobli,
Anekal J ancestors of the
petitiei?1er–‘i*espondents 4 to 6, lead to the
filing of Secfion 269 of the Karnataka
V. Pafzehsfatwv Rs.j*Aet,.1993, for short Act, before the
Qfficer of the Taluka Panchayat, which when
dt. 29.11.2005 Annexure~A, was
Va revision before the Chief Executive Officer,
A “:Lf”_.’2;Si1:Is~_.Panchayat, which too was dismissed by order dt.
” 11522008 A.m1exu:re-B. Hence this writ petition.
2. It is contended that the petitioner has since
instituted O.S.No.246/03 arraigning respondents 4 to 6
QR
-4.
as defendants therein, for declaration,
injunction and recovery of possession, of
immovable property, said to be c=i’1″m,e’_1′:1ie::of_ti1e ” =
PrI.Civil Judge (Jrdn) and JMFC, eeke.t
needless to state that the be the *
fnai decision in the Suit eAppeaI.. peeeeeamgs, if
carried in appeai. V ‘4 V
3. The i revision petitions
filed 15:»; met the Chief omeer and the
Chief EkecéotiyetV”€)i°fieei§,””..{}81;u1extnes»A and B) over the
_ of property in question, in favour of
to 6, does not decide the civil rights of
is elsewhere said transfer of khata does
not44″cotix§ey”.Vtit1e to the property in question, and only
V’ V’ V. name of the person/s primarily liable to pay
‘ taxes. In that View of the matter, no useful purpose
‘4 be served by setting aside the orders A11nexures~A
and B and remitting the proceedings for fresh
Mx
-5-
considezatzion While on the ()th€:I’ hand, cxxdswcf
would be met by directing the parties.’ »
decision of the Civil Court of coriqpctcérit;
thereafter approach the autiiegitieé’ <;Oi1cernéd'V_AtQV.m1j:.tate L.
their names in terms of the
The petition is, ':'of.
Sd/1…
Judge