High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri S.V. Venkataiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri S.V. Venkataiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 August, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN

DATED THIS THE 1073 my OF AUGUST 209?;  % 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUs'r:cE'A"s' 'aQ%9AN1§iA%%    

WRIT PETFFION N0. 19566/2deé"{1§3.Rg m3_g;V = " "

BETWEEN :

1 S VVENKATAIAH .  .
s/0 LATE VENKATA'w1_A j  ,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS   aANAYAKANAHALL1
HALEVOOR POST
 HULWURQURGA HOBLI
 'X ATKUNIGAL TALUK
V. _TUMKUR DISTRICT  1r>13:'m'IoNER$

% (BY SR1: S V SHASTRI AN9 SR1: RAVINDRANATH K,
ADVS) L

.--
1":

 



AND :

1 THE STATE 01? KARNATAKA
BY ITS SCRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE -- 550 001   

2 THE COMMISSIONER
LAND SU RVEY SEYFLEMENT
AND RECORDS KR. CIRCL_E"---.V.
BANGALORE -~ 566 001 'V 

3 THE DEPUTY coM1t;iI~ss1o.N'Ei1e 
TUMKUR DISTRICT'   _   ' '
TUMKUR 

4 THE DEPUT2*ijj:»RE(:ii;cIR_j}

  
Tumitsra DIST;-TUMi{LIi"Q.. % I

5 THE 'm1§:sILDAR"" .-- 
KUI\IIG'}\L"TALUK 
g;uN1F<3AL, 'I'U_I\!§KURv ms'?

 ',6 I « .  TAHSILDAR

 NADA KA'CHER!
'- . "-OHULEYUVREDURGA HOBLI
3 KUNIG11I;T'A.LUK
"§'.UM__KUR--*"DIST  RESPONDENTS

R KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO 6)

I’ WRYI’ PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER
T v’!’¢,’,)_:__7 DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INCORPORATE
VSURVERY NUMBERS 85 FIX THE BOUNDARY MARKS BY

J;

“:5

have placed reliance on the Annexures which have

produced aiang with the Writ Petition. The _

at Annexure Gr would indicate thaLt1_1_e ii u

made a. detailed representation indieegtixiig :”i;:1.:::_’

respect of the properties situate”§n [25′}”. i

The said representation was _to..1′;he and
fourth respondents. I piaced
reiiance on the “s’;~teteh of right.
The ‘ respondents

have respondedivi’._-‘;o.e_n1e re_’pi’esentation nor have

they carriediiont’t.*1e”:~ftfii.3;est”‘.a.s made by the petition.

_ The iegirried eotmseit fof the petitioner placing reliance

in {on the deeuments would contend that since the

to act in amerdance with iaw,

V iv the p§eti1:’toner”‘”‘has been forced to approach this Court

foitthe prayer made in the petition.

.o-

4!

3. The learned Government Advocate, _on

instructions, would state that the petitioner

claim right to the extent as indicated in the peiitiozi; 9:1 : *

is further contended that the “er

limited only to the extent of the “ma:

therefore, if at any demaxcatioixiof ‘is to

be made, it could be ma:ie__i11 that

4. II1sofar3~vas««i,the based on the

records -….phy_5iea1 availability of the

land is a fiatter by the authorities viz,

_ the seegorid. respondent While carrying out the

Therefore, in so far as the rival

to the extent of the land, the

V sameineekii riot be adverted to since the only relief

it it ‘ i;nV”the Writ Petition is to direct the respondents

to i§1eoi’porate the survey numbers in accordance with

T V and to fix the bmmdary marks on the land in

12

‘S3