WP' 17932.08
IN THE HIGH COURT or mnuawmm AT
DATED THIS THE 19": DAY or FEBRUARY,__$3'GG9 f_~ _
BEFORE
THE E-101'-PBLE MR.JUsTz=@:E 'a: .'s...rAfr:L' -- .1: '-
WRIT mrrrxon no. ;_;z_932 Vi~..26o.3 ¥G1§1.4$',i:'C)" " V
BETWEEN:
i .
SR1. 30003 GOWDA, .
Sgo KOMANNA DYAVAN3'{3§_, 2. 5
AGES 86 YEARS * * --. '
3R§.AswA':'HA,
310, BODDEGQWM-,_ '
AGE?) 54 YEARS, V .
SRE. NAGES;H, _ 'V .
$/o. ::o13:::s:<';«o-w:::fl
AGED~45"'2"aa;2j3, =
ALL AVRE RBSIDEir§s'_O%t»
BE1,AvAL.a'~I1LLAGE,
SRIRANGAPATNA 'FALUK, .
MANEDYA :):"s:mc§1f, PE'I'I'I'iONERS
- V. {BY KEMPE c§C3w.9.A...m3v, FOR
SR1. K';V.Nfi1RA}33MHAN, ADV.)
sm. 12A~rv::3.:§ow13A,
~ 310 VENKATEGQWDA,
~. 34:33:; ABOLYF 85 YEARS,
R/QITBELGVCJLA VELLAGE,
= 4 ».:::I%:VLG?o.1,.A_ HOBLI,
" _ SMRANIGAPATM TALUK,
--_-MANBYA BISTRZCT.
... RELWONDENT
THIS PETITIQN IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 22'? OF' THE
'CONS'I'I'FU'I'ION OF ENDEA PRAYINC} TO QUASH THE ORDER AT
" ANNEXURE~H 13?. 15.3.2008 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUIBGE (JR. DVN.} AT
SRIRANGAPATNA, EN EX. N01/99 ON THE OBJECTIONS RMSED BY THE
PETYFIONERS TO CO}MM1SSiONER'S REPORT AND CONSEQUENTLY
QUASH/SET ASIDE THE REPORT DT.
24 2.2006 AT ANNEXURE43'
WP 17932.08
2
SUBMETTED BY THE SURVEYQR, TALUK OFFICE, SRIRANGAPATNA AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Order dated 15.03.2008 passed by the
rejecfing the objections raised by the >.p¢§eo;;ere1:§:’ait:V.who
the Judgement Sebtor in Execuficn
challenged in thisW–1§i_t Petiflbnfl V
2. The V. ifiti «bs’:eV1i filed by the Decree
Holder/Iesfibndeefit a decree passed in 0.8.
No.62/19 a5″¢on’ firm 520.775/1993 with certain
obsewafions: ma: :2e’g’.:,;ia:.?~~’Second Appeal, this Court directed
‘that E:_-f;ec1__1ti0nA{ shall appoint Court Commissioner to
$]3._E” the presence of both the parties and measure
the”13:3iLd, es plan prepared by the Aéditional Director of
‘ ‘Land enci to see that the defe1:1da1:1t’s 20 guntas in Sy.
is protecteii. Accordingiy, the Executing Court has
a Court Comjnissioner and obtained a report. ‘¥’he
“–«:;J§i£igment Debtor raised objections contenciing mainly that his
a “land was not measured. The Executing Court has rejected the
objections holding that the Court Commissioner measured the
%
WP 1’:’932.0s
3
land bearing Sy. No.1230/ 2002 also. The COII1}}}iSf§iOI1€T was
examined and his evidence was also considered While V1’e¥jee§’ng
the objections.
3. it is now contenfied that the Commissioner V
the land was not competent to cariy the~.
Petitioner contends t}Y;.2i4f:4″~.1;Ir1o1f1Asgr’,’l;.’1’V_ ‘Siliivreyor was
appointed as Comnzissioneze”; powers to the
Hobli Surveyor A bL I
4. No suck} the Court beiow. Hence,
the petifipiief fenise such 3 ground for the
first have been considered by
the Execufiug-.g3ourtV zightiy rejected. Hence, I dc; not
‘*fi;;1d gpqexit in petition 313.6} the same is therefore
V’dismis°se€i».._ » A * fl