IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGA§GR1§'-.:
DATED THIS THE 04% DAY 01:' AUGUST 2:§o9%1f_ é '
BEFORE
THE HQNBLE MR. JUSTICE ;é«L1'.§%l3V{>PAI'**§"A'.'N 1 "
wR_1*1* PE'l'I'1'IQN NO. 145 .20OS"£E§LR¥'RuE$) "
BETWEEN: 'L V'
SR} 3 ARJUN RAG Bf1§..3E
SINCE DEADBY HlS'"LR.$j
1 SAMBAJ--1.izAc3fB;RJE
S/O LATE :stRJm'~z__ RAc;._B:.R_JE"*._, '
AGEB A30':-.ni_50 YEARS .. é
R/A"1"'NQ 7;-,' 7?"?-:€1ROSS, HEALLESWARAM
BAv_§GA1,0R:a-3 v -- $
2 DAM AY£\!'§TH'I_ Em W'f.§)\'Z}OPINATH SINGH
AGED :'iBO~E.IT 48¥'§A.E~:s
¥_I:_iA 1N0. 19,. ASARVA SUKHI COLONY
~ 5.-:'«'a.*Es*1', MARABAPALLI
. * _ "'sE(:'UxmI:;RABAD - 560 025
iSzs.1:;'i:xii'§s.1%§¥/0 MANSAJI mo DHALVE
; "AGED--'2%.BOUT 46 YEARS
-.,1:2/Afr.:~_z'¢:: 7, 77% CROSS, MALLESWARAM
'mfigane-RE«3
K V' ' " = sumw-GAL1 BA!
._ 'éf?/0 $1§'I'HYANARAYANA RAD SINGH
" man ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A N0. 574/A, 3RD STAGE
BEML LAYOUT
BANGALORE-98 PETITIONERS
(BY SMT V V1JAYALAKSHMi VISI-EUKUMAR, ADV.)
.L
v
'u
. j<i5{43' ' V NAN 952315;;
AND:
1 STATE 09 KARNATAKA
DEPARTMERT OF REVENUE
M.S.BUii,.DlNGS
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-{)1 F
2 THE ASST COMMiSSIONER _
KOLAR SUB BIVISION *
KOLAR
3 THE TAHSILDAR
MALUR TALUK
MALUR
4 SR1 GU'I'I')?;PPA
smog QEAD 7- . "
4(1) ABBAPF?:A@v1'§x}'}3:';§sAP_¥V'£3-..VV--
s/0 LATE GUTTAPPAL4 '
MAJOR * " ' '
4Q C§iANNAPPA "
_ s/0 ..L;§;TE'~GU1TAPPA
MAJQR V' ._ ..... ..
443% 'k~'rHA5rAPPAi%%A ,
SI .0" IJXTE « GUTTAPPA
MAJOR * =
.S,v_._ 'RQR R4{1,'12,A3.:A?~II3"5))"
THIS WRIT PETITION» FILED 'AI.:'I'ID'£;R ARTICLES 225
AND 227 OF' THE coNs'm?IJTI':>N;,-_OIMIIIQIA PRAYING TO
BIRECT THE R2 AND R3 'I'O;_ {MN-!EF)IATELY TRANFER ALL
THE REVENUE REC0RI3s_II\I.,REsRE:;'r' OF '?H*--E SCHEDULE
PROPERTY IN FAVQUR OE? T1;IEV..:RR:m"-';oN'ER HEREIN.
THIS IRE:1>I'iII~:iI~I.I:"e€3Is3II'I%IG I ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'l'IjIIS DAY, 'IIREGQLIRI MADE THE FOLLOWING:
fer mandamus to direct; the second and
J»
-
rd
and seeking for the say of the ~
petitioners contend that they have no _A
further proceedings. However, J
at Annexure ‘R-2 and R~7′ 1;9_thee1$jection»’..§ste1i:eme:if’i ‘V
filed by the fourth and fifth ire§§pondem.s«%”‘1¥¢s;§égii¥9e1y
would indicate that ._i1otice issiieti to the
petitioners which V ‘ indiceteei :1 R. RTPT.
Ne.291/zooegosgyi’ Order in
NI.R.No.65/ The correctness
or otherfsise not be gone into at
this stage; sifice ‘it. iS<v.1T}f(§iI15€ii1L:"iI'e to consider that aspect
of the matter, si:1oe'if for any reason, the petitioners are
the order as either having no
the Tahsildar or for the contents of
V iv the oi'der.," its aiways open to the petitioners to file a
H 4A44"'sifat1.;toIy"'s.ppeaJ as contempiated under Secticm 136(2)
tiiie Kaxnataka Laud Revenue Act.
.1
-u
“*1
6. In that view, the mandamus as sought ._
be granted, but oniy liberty is given to the *
challenge M.R.No.65/ 2006-07 if:’.~ti’1es é are d x
advised to do so and if it is in
needless to mention thai if ‘Vito
chaflenge the said ordef, édrespaiddents
namely, respondent have to be
impleaded as p,a:a’-‘£je~_s they could
have their
Henee, “shove, the petition stands
disposed of. No-»Q1_9t:ler as to costs-
sdl-Ta
Tudqe