....
V T. sT1m—:é
V VV A1} aré”son–;=§ bf B N Rudmgorwda
_ All are agzfictllturist and residing at
” ‘V V. ‘Beunzlr Vfliagc
Hasgsa-z:~D3.strict W 573 115 Pcamanms
%_ .
L;
xx THE men noun’: 0? mnxnruu A1′ 1 * .
Dated this the 9*’-1 day of
Bamxga 4 % «
ma HOBPBLE am. Juéffzcg rt
Writ Petition No. {:%«%§:};g%?;gR/sun;
BETWEEN:
1 Sri B Re.1;mjé§ath 1; ii;
Aged -=11?’ye§1″1′:3 ” *
2 s;i*’B*’%R’pzg;bh§i;é;~
Agafi 39 V
3 551i 3′ 13 yve;ay%
Aged 3′?Vycar.3 A
– A ” ‘Agei:1″ 35″yg:ars
Bélur ‘i”Es1uk
(By Sn’ K G Sadashivaiah, Advocate)
ksm) %
V’ V _Wf[o.,Ra¢he:”gmvda
– Aiiged 70
5
The Deputy Commissioner
Ha.-man District
Hassan –5′?3 207,
The Assistant Commissioner and { ..
Special Land Aoquisifion OfiocrK_ ”
Hemavaflzy Reservoir ‘
Hassan Distxict v
Hassan — 573 201
The Tahsilsdar
Beiur Taluk T _ V
Beiur — V f
Hassan District -~ 5′?-3 “I 15
Sri M&B.s’€gW”éfi.’;’– % A
S/o latré Mazigowda é A
Aged gbout’;’381.:y_cars ” ‘ ‘
Residing [atif,Go1vL§r’ .
Maciih.-2:11 Ho-i;:;a._V > %
Hassan Diatxiet -‘%”S’?3V “115
Sn’ Raje Gowda” V
L.Rs.,
Smt.
rm @
H R”R11;drappa
* 0 Riachcgcmda
” 55 years
Sr; Digambarappa
S/o Rajegowda
Agcad about 35 yams
_ ;’}Iti€X’ passed by the Deputy Commissioner
144′ at Am1exu1e–H setting aside: the order of the
Commissiaoncr and the Tahsikiar and mmanding the
K _ i:t§at’t;a;r for fresh considcratian.
7 Sri Gangadhamppa
Sic) Rajegowda
Aged about 32 years
Respondents 5 to 7 are
Residing at Haarohalli
Madihaili Hcbli V
Hassan District:–571 135 ____”‘-…v.’.R¢;:spo11¢ie1;ta
(By Sri R 1305?; to 3;
Smt. Namitha Mahesh, Advgx.-ate. fbi R_s+_;-5§a),’_5{b). and 96-7)
This W1it:_}3e’£i§ti:jz2 iés undm*”Art§cIcs 226 and 227 of
the Consfitulicxanf praying’–£o”qua$h the order passed by
1:11;: Deputy C’;oxx1:1’1L§sai{§ne4_ ;’*.’:E-Eqgisrzin Hmsaan District
(mspondcntfil ‘h::zi:ifi):_’RA -»N0.__117i-BQGQ-2003 dated 14-11-2006
vide.
Thi$-Wrutit for prehm’ inary hca1′.u1′ g this
day, the C»ot1rt_ madé’t&>}1£:i§;vin,g:
….. *3 B E E B
have pxcfcxtrcd this Writ Pefiticm
2. The material on record discloses land bearing Sy. 0.
ROM _ .7 . – .. .5′ ,. . I.’
17 nwasuzres 72 acres in all. which is 31 test} a
A'” “I7axgacefi’p1’uject wen: granted 4 acres of land in Sy.
‘rehabilitation. The said order ef grant was
111.”‘¢1§:i’e.”é:at1 However, the same came to be caneeiieti
é t11e4 ‘!%..ssf i:-?.§te1;’;t Commissioner on 11.2.2001? which order was
by the Deputy Commissioner on 2.1.2001.
by the same respondents 4 to 7′ pxefermd an appeal
T Kamataka Appellate Tribune} whieh ailowed the appeal
en 24.8.2001 setting aside the oztier of canoeliaticm and
Belur Taiuk, Hassan District. In the
K.S.Nan.j11ndaswaIny was granted 25-macxes ‘
Smyanarayana Rae was ganted
between them 50 acres. The oriier 9f fie’ L’
m~granti:ng the hand is dated 3o.5V;%}::’§7e;e.__E§¢:h sold the
land belonging to them teene Selvam under a
registered sale deegi ‘Loopy of the
deed produced shows the extent
menfioned not 25 acres. The
petititanefe each out of the 50 acres
under dated 28.4.1997. In the
meanwhije 1’c;’:;€’§p(}V11€3£3I.,3iSA.”.4- ‘”t..£J 7 who 1031’; their land for the
rcstozrixag the grant in their favbusr. In
petitioners filed a Writ Petition bcfcrm this —
34651-34655/2001 seeking a di;~eca’$a::§ the
authoritiezs to measure 50 £55
boundaries. Respondents 4 to ‘tn:V thc; §said Writ
Petitions. This Court by oxriiejr allowed the
Writ Pcfiticns dimpfing boundaries of
the land in ail the infiemsted
persons firwncrs on the basis of
the Agéfilémcnt records keeping in
View Secfgicm’ Land Revenue Act, 1964.
AccordingIy,VV’th_# ‘i$é.ucd notices ten the petitioners as
» ,’S§’€H 3_.&i’;:I1;O:f_{1§fl vmsfiindgnm 4 to 7′ and prepared a sketch as per
50 acres of land puzchascd by the
sale dcreds. A by the amine
.I1:spc>iiii:ic11v*1i.~:.¢.. ‘=’.4 to 7′ pmferrfi an appeal to the Assistant
H 4.44’€.3@im1t1fissidn;::r who dismissed the: same. 11: “m against these
iitspondents 4 ta 7 preferred a second appeal to the
Comzmssioncr, Hassan District. The Deputy
Commissioner set aside the azforcsafi order of the Assistant
Commissioner as wcii as the sketch prepared
on the gmund undsr Section 14O(2)_9f_1fihe fiéi’ »e:i:;e;V ‘ ~
was expected to prepare a sketch
respect of the entire extent of mg >
said land belonging to the _”§V’fhe:1;§§:forc. the
Deputy Commissioner to’AAe:vsAs.*Vect1tc the
bmmdaxy work st;-gguy 30(2) of the Act.
Aggricved by the: hf-fifom this Court.
3. Res;13bi§d¢iz”téS.V__i:1ave._ aqzpearancc. They have
filed a have 3139 produced
dmumczfis contention. The sum and
substance of ‘in the first place the vendors of
_t’hc only to an extent of 50 acres of
331: dead dated 22.10.1987 under which
that they own 54 acres af land which
is pafbntljgfi ézfiirfimus. Secondly they contend out of the 50
H H owned by the vendors of the petitioners an extent
V. A aegis 1′? gamma belonfing to both Saniyappa and Scivam
acquired for Yagachi Canal and possession of the said land
Rivas takzm on 19.7.1991 as per AImexu1.r=:—R14. if the; afomsaid
X?»/’
exizem: of land 4 acres 34 glmtas is cxcludati,
with the vendors of the petitioners _is.~~e_I_1’ly gjjnti-:5
and, thfircfore, they could not havc:”:Qon §%ey¥é:d
petitioners and the authorities ‘iisfutgot t he L’
acres of land on the basis the said
ezxtcnt. It is in the suxvcy
conducted by thg: the Deputy
Commissioner said oxficrs and
dimcting re-s;«1;’V€;§.;»’_ H
4. :*._Pe;r’ counsel for the petitioners
countcfing an enéonscment issuw
by the; Oficcr stating that in Sy. No.
extent of ? mlm 10 guntas and as
M belong to the Government no award is
‘gm-Inpcxasation is paid. Relying on that the
§c:amed for the, petitioners submit the: contcnfien that 4
guntas was acquired is without any substance.
S. Fmm the aiizvresaid undisputed facts what emerges is
No. ‘.72 measures 17 atmas. Out of the said 72 acres 50
.9 fiver: -3-5 only. At any rate before fixing
is for the authorities to find out what is the
K V qnfV’lv;.tg:)1.i1i.daI’11cs. If the extent of 4 ames 34 games ia not
H figcontendad by the petitimzzezs than they wouki be
V 50 acres of land. Pctifiouers would not be ealtiflsd to
of lead if there is aoquisifion. Then their cntitbmcnt
‘kvould be arestrictcd to 45 acres 6 guntas. It is net 2: case where
acms was ganted to K. ‘. :3’ ” ” ;
I{.S.Smyanarayanara<:: where in turn 2 '
Selvam and Saniapjpa, the vendors
as per Annaxu1t=:~R14 an cxte:r;t "cfV..2 17_
acres 34 guntas was taken 0fu6Vt;;2£!.3 EV$cf€;A1ve1Avvv1}*§as.sing of
an award. Thus, the c;f the petitioners
vendors on the day " 45 acms 5
guntas. which reliance is
plasixmd shcrwsi. It is on that basis
pc1ition¢:jb$ fiacy want the boundaries
to be for J No. 17. The authorities have
acqujxt-ti an 'E:-§.'-tm':t,.¢V:;1V"–. and the petifioaars vendors
actu" ' heid by the paxtlb 3 who am seckm g
the petitioners are challenging the grant
respondents 4 to 7 or the respondentaate iiiie it i
of the petitioners of the afo1esaid<pl£n_'id;ii The thin
regarding the extent of ed
which is the land which they Under these
circumstances, the Com] a'aaionr,r ji1stified' in
setting aa1d' e the orders 'pass:-dd and the
Assistant i to keep in
mind thereafter in fix the
which the is utilized' ' for Yagachi Canal
" "and the in the petitioners vendors was
mentioned in Annexu1e–R14 and also to
find' oiitas endorsement, only the land belonging' to the
' Govemnient; land, was acquired and no compensation
"After ascertaining these facts fix the boundaries in
with the directions issued in the earlier Writ
it This would meet the ends of justice. In that View of
hi/'
the matter. I do not find any merit in this
Aocoltlingly, the petition is disposed 4:-f: 't
ckl
Ii!-{J w. 2:. Re. 11659 '4a£'–figs
3.3.2009 "
Mm. at. 25112009 _ A _
in paragraph 2 air page 3 in
Viiiaga’ is mcnf:211ed, it is nt
vtiiiagfi is ‘flanayakanahaiii § for VV
{?£}I’I’E,Cfi”j{§I1 of the afomsajei “t.’«I_’§’f_}I’,’! «t’1f;i:’-3 fifipiimztion
is flied,
2, The ui1t::rf._4’c:2u_1::§fi,’;c1V¥,3t:x;’i’; H.:=:1?:r:::, ofitse: is;
directétd tcr
Sd/-3
fudge