High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Basavanna vs The Deputy Commissioner Mysore … on 27 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Basavanna vs The Deputy Commissioner Mysore … on 27 January, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
-.  ...... m&flW(F3'lfly_"'ht:'kWhVQI W ........m...m nuan wmu Ur Mmmmm 1-new mum" «or KARNATAKA mm; mum W mmmam mm-§'

 

--4uu

pxrczezluced the survey sattlemant raczeaxcis 

thezcefcure, hia application is kept 
The psetiticner wars also éiracted tan.- ésul::cm 
fxraah applicatisn alcang with»?-.3.4l  2

uzi-sczuments and after gettihg 

changed in the €3ut1ina V.1§§vje1fii}5m9ntVVAVp£ft;'$a;§i';'~~The
petitioner,  7'y-" 'v 
to state that they  .:';'§5~aued by the
authority wagg'  ;' f auz: months
and BY Vi$73'L;4"""'«..  Sactirzm 95;
the   was: deamed ta
have  r..b9an  tlwztefare, the

endoraeméizfig" wa§_ fiat . f;enab1e. I-icswmrer, there

_._was  '~x-e5ps.i'.ar;.3aH tram the authorities. It

 =__f x1:1:t1§;m_.j'v#:::~§r;3pire5 that raasyondent I«¥<:.2 had

J'. .fi'$'£1.fi€*t3. V é{."_'~L-._di:£écti0n ta: respondent Noni to

_vcons idzeir§ regmasantation filed by the
Thereafter, in spite af further
. .’3:é;:!~.’€’a5éentati.«::na, them has been :19 raspcansa
the zzeapznndanta. It is in this

Hh.m::k;grour:.d that the pxasent paatition i3 fileii.

‘S

wmammm see

….. . …… ?_.A…u.A…..-.- wr Iu-uuVHIHl\.H ruun LUUKI OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH’

15$

3. The counsel for the petitioner fionld
point out that, on a plain examination cf£;he_f_’
sequence or events namely, thet an eppiioatien “‘

has been filed seeking: ,-c:gnée:ai:b:$”i’jfhhiphg

3 . 12 . 2002 , which ought hhiara on
of within a period ot [font imhhehg; the
enderaement issued in_éeten”1§;5,3D03, which
is clearly heyfihd the Petiofi of four months
and having fien§t§.te thhjighhg as nub-section
5 or se¢_:iah7—“sé.,§,_, is deemed to
have been_ntonte#*enn the respondents have no

alternetive}»bnt to grant such conversion. He

vwould§fu:ther’enEmit that the inordinate delay

l,oh«:ha finit oi the respondent: in applying the

l&3’ne if hfnnde is, therefore. inexplicable

ii_end data to the prejudice of the petitioner.

iӢ{ The Government Plunder, who has

i_ente:ed apearance for the respondents, on the

i”other hand, would contend that, as stated by

8

uuvuu \o-awn: \rI I\r\l\I1l’\IF|l\l’I ‘Jr l\.l’\KI’I’\II’\H.R FIIKII1 Lu’-J’JKl U!’ KAKNAIAKA ‘

subject land, as it, it is doomed to have hqon

converted under Section 95(5) of the
Land Revenue Act, 1954 and process ”

in accordance with law, within’

three montha from the daft:

certified copy of this 6r.: fis.;.

bk? ; ‘ -V