High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri G Paramashivaiah vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 20 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri G Paramashivaiah vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 20 September, 2010
Author: H N Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

Daifled this the 20"' day of Sept<31nbAé'« VV 

Writ Petition N0. 1S26§;;2006("1_.B:R}3s)VV*,
QEMTMWV

Sri G. Pztranlashivaiah f VV  _  - 
Son Oflate Ga1.iga:;F-,3  g  ~ A'  
Aged about]:-'3a1V3?¢a~flK:..';V\ 'V '   V

Residifig a_£ NoV.7'; 1.;$1V'Ma1mVRoaci f

Kemparina I_.ay0uV1;',VV   VV

Palace G'u1.I,ahMe1].l.i'~V. AV _ ._

Bangalore M4"-560 O23   ...13e'u't.i0r1er

VVVV{By-----'Ski 13 M Arum, Advocate]

i. ' V V The S'¢V§€i_Hf:fV.V' of Ka1'na'I.aka
 R€:}V)fti<3EiI1t€d by its Se<:'1.'e1.a'1*y
R£3Vf",l"1L£(i' Dep2:1r'£.mem',
.. _ MS Builciing
V V"-._Bang21.1cJre A 56000]

-E-».,_..
mm

//3'"



ma?

F»!

The £)eput.y Com.n'1issi.0ne1'
B21.nga10r(?* I)iSi,rict
i3ang21ioi'<3

The Deputy Com:rni:ssion<»:1-
Ciiy Municipal Council
Byaia1ray21nap'u1'a
Bangalore

Sri G B-':1E'33.VE1I'E1j

Son 01' late Ganggippa

Aged abo-u.t. 74 yeaztsf' _ _    v _
Residing at N0.323, Siiivafiniipgi  i
15131 Cross,.Sadashi\:an--agar  ' "
Banga}01fe.,-- $3.60 080 1_'.E"{.1fE',i'pV.E1"
No.32-3*, 1v5"' Crc,-sS'«.,~7

; 'E1.--'1dashiv.ai:iagai' '
i  Be_ti'1;_:a10rté 1" 560' 080

. . . Resporidents

 ._E%:<j  i,:»::;' {Y1 5:; §§:,§-5"'?°;:!;.,§:'{:'{s.%'§?§:"§(;§:a§§l-§ '°€;':;'"§' §a..§;é2,
_(Ef».y Sri {-3 K M2111] Lina ,h AdV<)Cai,er. for R3:
 V M/ Lavv Opitions Adv0(:a't:e for R4€%

2  ifrit peii.'z.i01'1 is fileci nuclei' Article 228 and 227 of" the

._  "{?("}71'1SiH.1£.fi()II 0i"1'ndia, praying in Cali for the records {rain the
I'€S}?Qi'i€1('.]1[*3 which Uhimately has 1'esL,1]1:ed in 1'emoVi.r1g the
 _Ii.é1-I_1"i§f of t:I'1e petiiionézr from 'i'.1'1e 1'ev€nue records. as per

1#;;1I1eXu1'evN dziied 2362002.



This Writ. pet':i€:i<)n coming on for ht:-.21ri1"1§f. i,k"1:s;_de)}?..
CoL1I'1'. made the following:    é -

In this writ. peution the ;5_et;'.i;i0'r1er*has prayed: '§=b'rV;1.rwrit. mt; '

the nature of Certiorari to  c.1afi3T(:lv.'25v7ViE)6.20O2 as
per Am1exu1*e~N and " passed by the
second respondent as  the name of

the petitionejf xlgmae 01″ the? 41:;

responrlé fit :Rz1’i’.h’é§dar.’ ‘ ~ . «V

2. : *rheV’ sL11q;ec1-,”*nr;’::;::er’or this writ peuuon is three.
guntias 0f”‘<E_g1h=:1 xi':,1_.} and 23 g'L1ni.as of Ianci in

S}?.I\7.c_§fi.' 25/ E si{L'z&3 fl<§ 3.1, I–Iebbal Vrillage, E3a.nga1ore Norfh Taluk.

pe1.it:i01"1er C0l1i.f3I"}C1S that in {he year E9808},

A~h§;s._=I1a113.é'=£:a.n1Vi:.1:6 be emel-ed k21iheda1~. in possession o1"1.I1e

3a1:1d;_s- in.q1.1_é}sti(31'1. SL1bsequeni:1y,_ the lancls in queslflm <;:21:'11e

rk–uN

/71"?"

if

to be Vested with the ‘I”0w.n Muzlicipafiiy, Bya1,araya11apugrzi and
they also erimred the I1E’i1″I’l(‘, of the p€[iEiC)11€’.’I’ in the }?€?;1′(T.’2}QOO.

Stibsequemly at the instazricze of the 4″‘ 1’esp0nde;if1’t.-.«,1Vh_;:j”‘E”Qw»:f1

Mmiicipakity removed the manic of the pi”»i1i4’.hej”E’e.w1’1’Muni’t:ipVaii%.y§”‘?!f§1e

pe1,i.ti0.1’1er filed an appeal befoije 1.116._D’€puty,»'(§«;,I1v1111isé;i0m’:1fL

Baiigalore District in case {}’.}88/ Vthe same’

Carrie to be dismissed as per ABEECXALI-Fé¢-Q cor1f’ii’11iix;1vg the order
of the Town Mu:m'(:ipaEiiy’;”- illeniqe, %.i;11iS”‘u{r*iLpefiiiion.

4. I I?£eaf(‘l”i”}<tAéi;3br '5'L}_1.'I""§€°,['] is on both side and erused the

entire writ 'p;_1peVrsV.V" _ h

5. 5′ » _ Ii.Vi:~:i. Ax1Vo’t.’1i.13. dispute that the 1:-3.:1’1cEs in q’ues’t:ior1 were

.”‘e?;1f1ViL>1:SE3};iE.\id.4158 e111civ”S’3i.Nc).325/1. Ii. is I1.:rLher not in dispute

A{hatihfC._1Ei.[]CESIEELIESUOII are now si1uz1E.<3d within the limits of

lhcé ffown, E\/1i1j';»:iiT(.*ipe1.Iity, Byalaraya1'1apura. It is not in Clispuirz.

V'-ihelt. E.h:-:r_é are civil suits pf3:1di:'1g het.'w<:1e1f1 Elhe peiit.io11<3r.

'J:

ii’-31 1’espm1de’n1 ::~1nc.i other I.’a11’1ily 111oI1113éé1’s in O.S.E’€o:4″‘§Z’S3V}{95.

O.S.No.2786/O0 and five ()t.he1′ 511113 for p;11*iii,-iot’1 V()£fi tj1o1″c*l1 j’..o”111f;.’

fzmlily pr()pe1″t.ies i11Clud1’I1g U10 121:1d:-Mn..q&L1est.ioV141.’–V5Fh.é’1′(~?;{i:;>1’£§1.’it. ‘

is not proper for this Cou.r{: to go i.>i’;”,*.’I():’».,*’.”]K1A’t”:K 11116

lands in quostioxl. FL1FEh€1′ ._it’~..iS 1″:(.>”i i11_c§isp’t1f€’~.i.hé1£. the’

petitioner h€1’€,’iI1 fig) ; 2_f§3 ‘ 1 th e
4″) respondent and of permazueni.

iI]jL1I}Ct.i()I1. Or1co11f.€si;”‘ the exports
interim orcior. ‘ :11WC;).S.263/ 95. Further,

Civil

the order of the temporary i1{1_}UI1.CUOr1
Came {go [Court in MFA No.32’?/95 Vicle
order daie_d 17.{)’2.Vl”$954.””~-._f:i’r:’orefore it: is also not appropria’i,r~:

and _p’rope’r i’orv-a’hVis’Co:irt. to go 1111.0 the queséion of possession

“of {E6 lzifid in quostion.

Vb’: is seen from {he record that as pm-

A121’1éXL11’es–‘C._-Ef. C-2 and C-3. ‘(he 11111116 of “Erie petiii()n.or is

shown. ka.1I*1ec%a:” zmd Anubhavadzzr of Sy.No.48/1 from the

to 2004-»O5. So also A’1moXure~C~5 is the RTC

.1,

/E’

if

ax

6

exnaet showirig ihe name of the pei.i’tioner as keithed_2_i:.’:1;1d

aimbhavadnr in respect of Sy.1\Eo.125/1. It is fog”iheA§;iI’vsi’=1.§ii:ei*,

the Town Mtiiiieipeiiiiy, Byatarayar121;r3tmi._.’ remoiieddis .i;E1eV’I1,2_in1ee-Vo£’VV

the “petitioner and introduced the r:[2i«1I1e_’o’~i”d theé14**’..’I’€§§135f1.51i?1f3’i

as kathedar of the lands in qi,Le_s’n’.o1i per.Anne>§;j:*e<.i\T–'dated.0'

25"' -June. 2002. It. is see_I_1_:u:fifo1'n__ the order
Annexure«O that the :v:'LL£§"'-Vif:L¥?i}'";Qi1d€I1t oame to be
entered in plaeeiof' Ijet}.-+CiU'l':'x.9:f" of the settlement
deed dated "figment dead is not
a reg1'si_._e_red~.. petitioner disputes the
genuinenessi »"seii.1e:neni deed. Therefore, the
respondents?' relied on a unregistered and

dispnievd_sei.'demAent1deed of 06.04.1990 to pass the impugned

0'-orders f?E:H1G'{iI}g t'he"'n}ame of the petitioner and io enter the

_ofd'ihe:/1"" respondent as katihedar of the iands in

qt-Aes'Eiior'i.' reasoning of the Depiiiy COT.E11'11iSSiOI1€1' in the

impiignevd ofder that iihere is 21 tide deed pending is also

V,i'ae.eLs:(121E1§j'incorrect. Adniiiiiediy. there are suits peridiilg reiatixig

0 'th.-5:' partition of the lands in quesiion.

13.06.2006 as per ,A11I1C*.XL1E’€vO

qu.e1shed.

(iii) The I12-xme of the ;3e1.i1,i(.:{1’z@:” iS’1feSi()red._”zxs EQaii1etI’:1:’ ”

in respeci, of the lands i117f;uE:§s’Li011.

(iv) The Civii Courts c¥ét:ic_i_e’%.h€’~.ni2:.;i0il€:1″ xi:-‘it1r;01’1t 0

being influenced Grder bf’th¢ }§§1tha1 In the

narne of the”‘}33ti*aiGI3eE:fL } C)fii’–df:-21j::5Jci. _acco1-dmgly.

0″”?S’i3_»’