High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Gopal Rao Yadhava vs The Tahsildar on 7 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Gopal Rao Yadhava vs The Tahsildar on 7 September, 2009
Author: V.Gopalagowda And K.Bhakthavatsala
WA.1625/G8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 7111 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009 
PRESENT _ ' V ' V
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V. qQ1éALA__  _  "

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE i«:_.__ 131+iA1{T}:Avx_&iS;_;1}£§V  .

WRIT APPEAL N 0. 1625/ 2608 % {KLR/vRR§_Sx;j:R) 

BETWEEN:

Sn'.G0paI Rae Yadhava,
S/osharnarao, 
Aged about 76 yearsfi ' ' A
R/ 0. Hanumanapa1.aya 
Mahadevapura Dakha;1é',_,
Kasaba Hobli, ....   ,  _ .,
Nelamangala Taluk;~ _ 7'; '
Bangalore DiS7f_. ' "  '
(Benefit of Senicr V V ._ ._
citizenship not C1'ai;ned)."' 2

(By_S1i.Sha.1§ffiukhap;:$a.K}S, Adv.)

AND; S =

 1. The"'§T:a{f1_sAiidaf';'_~v.,v._ 
 V . , vNe1ama,r1'ga1a Taliuk,

Nelamafigala, ' "

_  . _ .BaQga10re Dist.

 « V _ 'S  .AI\/Ié;favEfi1:ataiah,

o.*l_at'c Huchagangaiah,

 Aged 45 years,

R'/'a-.Anchipura viiiage,

V V" ._ Kasaba Hobii,

. . .APPELLANT



WA.1625/O8.

Nelamangala Taluk.
Bangalore Rural Dist. ...RESPONDENTS

(By Srnt.Asha M.Kumbaragerimath, HCGI3 for R-1)

This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the

Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the;’_’Writ’jP_etition_

No. 18281/2007 dt.25.8.2008.

This appeal coming on for preliminary dlayill

Dr.Bl~lAK’I’HAVA’I’SAI.A. J., delivered the fOllowing:– .
JUDGMENT ‘ 1 ‘

In this appeal. the correctness’ order

made in Writ Petition No.182″8.l_/200″?’ th’e.._fi1e ot”‘lea”rned single

Judge of this Court is questioneddfi it .:’

2. Learned’-Couensel:’-~for.rthey:_:appe1lant submits that the revenue
authorities erred’*:i,n not the entries with reference to the
larrfi beafifig ‘Survey l of Hanchipura village, Kasaba Hobli,

Ne1’a,rn»anga1a.%lL’a1ul§§”~–l3angalore District. in terms of the Sale deed

dated” eifceeuted by one Siddayallamma. He further

vlflsubmits ‘the’ learned single Judge erred in not quashing the

gl.oridei:,:ciate.el 03.08.2007 made by the Respondent No.1/Tahsildar in

No.23/2007~O8.

3. Learned Govt. Pleader submits that there is no illegality or

einfinnity in the impugned order.

E

\~.,__m__..,..—-“”‘ ‘

WA . 1 6 2 5 /0 8

4. The case of the appellant/ petitioner is that he requested the
revenue authorities to have the entries in the revenue records
mutated in his name in pursuance of the sale deed” dated

19.07.2006. Learned single Judge has noticed the dispute.p_beltiw_een

the parties in ().S.No.36/2006 on the file of Civil Jgi’d’g;{‘;{gi1in:_¢1–e_p

Division), Nelamangalan On account of rival c]_.aim,..’::the’~»,reVer1_ueu0

authorities have directed the appellant to:=.seels;.

the Civil Court. Therefore, the learned__ singq”ie_J there;

was no good ground to quash the orlderplliolfj the Tahsildar
and dismissed the writ petitionofiiwefsee ground to entertain
the appeal. A

5. In fails and the same is hereby

dismissed.

“V(}1″an’teditliree.flweeksmtime to file memo of appearance by the

Z _ Govt.1P1eader. .. 0′ . V

Sd/w
RIDGE
Sd/~
EEIDGE