(BY K.
AND:
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA£.,:OR_E~._v
DATED THIS THE 29" DAY OF NOVEMBE,R§,s:A..2m'.Q:": ~
BEFORE _
THE HON'£-3LE MR. JUSTICE A.N. :'\/EI\{'UEG:0P;1\_i'_#.' TGOTw,DLA"*::,A_j
WRIT PETITION NO.L:oB_Q5/2O:.'O (GM§CRj§:«),.L
BETWEEN:
SR1 GOVARDHANA NAYAK S 2
5/0 LATE \/ITTAL NAYAK ._ ' .
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS _ '
R/AT ARIADKA _v.1LLAGE S .
POST E<A\/U, RBTTBR TA.LLjK};
D.K DISTRICT." '
SHR1HAR:, FOR.LEAi'jmSTiC'1A,"'ADV.)
RRABHAKAARA PRABHVUV
" '~ S/O -:;ATE,,1RAr\4.As<R1SHN--A~ RRABHU
AGED A.BOuT _48..,YEARS.
VCVHA.NT'DvRASr¥:E.é{AR PRABHU
S/OLATE RA-MAKRISHATA PRABHU
* AGED---,,ABOvuT_4i5 YEARS,
BOTH ARERESIDENTS OF
" 'V.M,U'id*D»AKOCHI, ARIADKA VILLAGE,
POST +<'jA\/U, PUTTUR TALUK,
574 223.
A:'.f'M~GANGDHARA NAYAK
'S/O LATE VITTAL NAYAK
" " " AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NRCC, IVEOTTETHADKA
P.O.DARBE, PUTTUR TALUK.
... PETITION ER
M MOHAN NAYAK
S/O LATE VITTAL NAYAK
MUNDAKOCHI
ARIADKA VILALGE, POST KAVU,
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K. 574 223.
DR. M GOPALAKRISHNA NAYAK
S/O LATE VITTAL NAYAK '
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,' _
R/AT ISHWARAMANGALA 9
HEALTH CENTER,
P.O. ISHWARAMANGALA
NMUDNUR VILLAG2-:,_
PUTTUR TALUK " '
D.K.DISTRICT,
SMT SHA.S.H::I:KALA
xfv/O"?;Az§V?H1AKt$§1'S:4_A'N.:"EsHAT"'W A
AGED 'ABO'U.T-SITYEARS, ' -
R/AT AJJAVARA'~\/ILE_AG.E.»AND POST
SULLIA TALUK .--
D. T<.DISTR:cTj.._
vAsHfi)"f;A. _____ -4 v
_ W"/O BHARATHI SHANKAR
._AC:fE'D"A._B"OUT 46 YEARS,
R,/_A'T_& KILP.N_.GODI HOUSE
. '--..'BALIE';A,._VELLAGE AND POST
SLJ,T._L1_A'j--.L--': 'ALL; K, D. K. DISTRICT.
SMT2 KAUSTUBHA
T W/'O BABAPRASAD SHARMA
"R/AT C/O GANGADHARANAYAK
"R/AT NRCC MOTTETHADKA
P.O.DARBE, PUTTUR TALUK.
SMT INDUMATHI
W/O KAMALAKSHA PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NADUSARU HOUSE
PUNACHA VILLAGE AND POST
_R'T:\{1ARY"' .
2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed Ex.Case
to appoint a Commissioner to demarcate the path,
links wide (3 feet 4 inch) for the”userA_o’f
(defendants 1 and 2) atythe
Sy.£\lo.347/3A2 along with aVga.l:u”~{on eastern:s_idea:o’f”agalu)if
without destroying the…V.tree.s””‘an_fd’iuiimprovements of the
plaintiffs. It was help of a
surveyor to the path way
a shown in” said second appeals
on 27.=,1.1<39§.r3ii_»_..__'-,
'3. in"An"app!ica.,tsion'»iVwas filed by respondents 1 & 2
,_for._fa5pposi:ntment"of-a~–«Court Commissioner for demarcating
links and such other work as observed in
the'dlecreej?'i_;'-ifcommission warrant was issued on 8.2.2010
7.__to K.~Ra’ghunatha Rai, Advocate, Puttur. The said
A’~Tf”CAommissioner after conducting the local inspection
spbmitted a report dated 6.2.2001. The execution Court
has allowed the Ex.Case entitling the decree holder to 5
links path way at the eastern most edge of Sy.l\lo.347/3A2
E
commissioner. One T.A.Manjunath, II Gradie-.’S_urye’yo’i’,g
was deputed by the ADLR, Puttur, to thjegcou-rt__i’r~i
commissioner in the matter of execution ;of«_gthe’commgission
warrant. After issuing _notice7«to=. the,,’i–“-p.arties,°’3
commissioner has executed ‘t’i’.eficogmmissioni’warraht and
has submitted the report,_dat’ed:_Otiiiuéifi-Q01.
9. The passing the
impugned that, the
commirss’ion’er:,.report éi_J”ri’ch%alIengecf. Indisputedly,
the pVetiti”o,nerv: of objections dated
20.02_.20(5Ii..to’ co.m’m’i’ssioner report. He has also filed
withva——«prayer not to accept the report as
piroperor’correct. The impugned order does not make any
reFe’renc.eto__ either the said statement of objections or the
affida~.rit;’;. In the circumstances, the contention put forth on
A of the petitioners that, there is no application of
jtidicial mind to the materiai on record and that, the
impugned order is based on surmise and conjectures, is
weiI–founded. The execution court ought to have taken
2
V
/ .
_cons_id erati on .’ t.
No “costs.
10
into consideration the objections and the a_f.fi_c_’4i4aV\k:it4:faindé
passed a reasoned order. In not doing ‘is
dereiiction of duty and violation 0;FAAlfur.dar–nen’tai_”prin:ciple§c
of law. In the circumstances, Vinterfe.re:n.ce is ne_cessary=;.4 V
In the result, the writ petition stands atIllo._we_d and the
impugned order stands”«(:iii;asi’i§eci;}’
The exe.c:.=:tio:~n heirelbycv_.di:re’cted to consider
the objections and’:-tiiire?’ the petitioner to
the commissio’n.ert-re«portp’and….__paSs order as early as
practicable andat any e”\;’.rei1.t;”‘-isiitwhin a period of six weeks
from theoate a co’py:_V’oVf this order is placed on record of
the either of the parties.
CoVntent_ior.:S_r.c:of both parties are kept open for
Sd/~
}U-DGE