( By S1~i (;'~,~. psg;§i'vR"¢ddy, Adv.)
State of Karnataka,
2 The Deputy Commissioner,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGf!;l.©_§:I§: "
DATE!) THIS THE 1662 DAY 0;? APRIL,'12'e§9vV'L" 1% ' "
BEFORE
THE i~I(3N'BLE. MR. JUSTICE "§3§'i£SHYALENDf§Av.VKlfi_Mz'%.R
WRIT PETITION Np 9559736-as'-..2oo9. '(U£.«.C)
BE'1'WEEl\I: V A . "
1 Sri P. Kempaxma . V
Aged about 4'?".years, _.
S/0 late sz;i?Puty;a'ppa,
R/o Somashfitfihalfi,
ChickabanavaraVPosi: ..
Bangalmsc _Hr>rth"*§§sa1u'1€.
Banga1or¢~9();_» 2
2 Sri Mun3c'm'kka;_m.--a*-- %
aged abclut 30 ye:ars3,_ " ..
S] 0 iate Mmwibymppa,
Rfl; Sdmashetiiha11i,«.
-. Chicltabaizavaxa Péét,
% 'Banga10r€«.N"efih Taluk.
~. " 'V ' Petitioners.
§R8V8I).1l6 Department,
Soudha, Bangalore,
By its Secretary.
Bangaiore Urban District
t;'51«;env'oi?ef by the Government and this order
V I1vad_'»- up by a further order dated
' 1988, copy of which is produced at
4"--._v3§;I1I"1fiX1i¥fie:I{ to the writ petition and though such orders
V' passed the petitioners have continued to remain
elzfipoesession of the respective extents mentioned above;
" " that the petitioners having come to know of such orders
then the revenue entries had been only in
the fathers ef petitioners 3 and:-2;' 2
being taken by surprise with
enquiries and came to know the xhadet
pursuant te a declaration tfiiétih "fi1e'c1v§ by one
Kempaiah son of same village
under the previetons (Geiiing and
Regulations declaration, which was
false acco;%a::§gee:c§: had been ordered ex
parte . that 126% guntas 01" land in
this sgujvey Wasexcess vacant land and that it
'V our": of the petitioners, submission of
V&i?ap§"'«f§e<§Vti§,";}earz'::ed counsol, is that the petitioners
o oooo4oo;ma: tI1€:..V__Ié1ncI in fact had been purchased by the first
T.p§:ti:ioi:er's father way back in the year 1967; that
"j iitheieatter it had been partitioned in the family and the
~ " §)€iifiOl'16I'S are in enjoyment of the extent indicated above;
which was not to their knowledge have
court seeking for the foilowing ml:iefs:._' V' V'
"a} Quash the order dated :a2'.12.o1987, in
Case No. ULC (A) (7) of .86-87._a'1"3.d {ht-:'7 order
dated 26.3.1988 in No. LIL-o(A) (7)._[6'?_of 86-87 '
passed by the Additional Special "Dep:;.1ty
Commissioner, Urban
Park West, Baxagaioifo, V-idx:V-Ai1I1o2{i;Lr¢s J & K in
so far as 'A' Scht;_{iu;ic:":f" 5B.'" -Schedule
pmpertiesare coI1¢:«er11e4:1;' .. ' ~
13) tliie respondents to 'do-'iete the WOI'd
Sarkari (CiG\i”FiI’iT;£1It§£Lt)–8,S _ ontored in column
No.9 1},2(2}_’of”v.’RTC respect of ‘A’
S(;Iz’1oéi13.-?«::’}aIz(1″f’IB’ Sx3fi’cdL:1é”properties; and
C) relief or reliefs as the
situaizions domandé-3 to meet the ends of
ju$tiCe”;a{ ‘ ~.
aré of the Land fi’om times of their ancestors;
question of examining the validity of the orders gated
12.12.1987 and 26.3.1988 at this point of time;
jurisdiction as I am of the View that such is
cause and not worthy of exami:1a.tié§1x- in i§71:’it_:jji1z”4i_:¢<V:1ivct?;.ii:.’
Though Mr. Papi Raddy,’
petitioners submits that the pétitionérs ‘am of”
these orders, that itself’ ééxpiariation as
the current cause of aérizjrz ‘ fifgsome trhange sf
revenue €:I}.tI’i(‘I:_£§ ‘aT’r1;d~r1o’€{t”1i1)g..~:é:ls3.”‘~ ..
5. It seek such relief before
the C1V11…CO11I’t.0I”aI1yrQtI1§F”f()I'{1lI1 as aiwavazlable to them
in law, bu£”t11€s€V§v*rit.’p€i§iii.i(§ns are not entertained and are
. on of laches.
Sd/-n
Judge