High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Sudhama Hebbar vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Sudhama Hebbar vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 December, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
 ,......m wwwnr m..n- nnwmmamnfl mam?! wwum Ur KARMAT?-\%A ME£3§~E COURT 0? §€fi:fiNfi3fi%{afi Hfififi CQW

3: THE mmicoum 01-' I«:.AmA'rAKA, BAHGALbR:«:kkk%*Ffj if  
mama T;-m'rHE 17% my G1?' DE(.TE_MBER    "  'V

BEF@E

THE smmx MR. JUs'r;§:g_.,g;.s;B{§E.a1§r:gé   

WRIT mmg 11 Q %.   ' «E1 
EN:  _    

SR1S{IDHALEA'*E§_EBE&1iR'*.."A   ;  
510 mm    x 
AGED  -     V
cm: AGiRIC_U"I.~.TUE'E  *  --

 PEQTHGHER

{BY am  ,r§r'1€, ai:*sv.',;

-.2-----n.n..... ~

 THE $%T2;r$%"9F mmwraxa

"  E?  SECRETARY

mivazzatmgtm cm REVEHIIE
M a mgxnama

  mm Tnmtxm
- VEEL I
mp BY rm cmmum

  A  BELTHAI%'(?aA.DI '£53,133

1) K DIBTRICT.

SKI HAREMRA HEBEAR
3;' E} E1533 GAHAPiiT'HY HEBEAR

i



WW ,,,,_,,,7.,'_, ,,,,. .,.,,....,.,...........,."-.,.....--.. umiwnflnrt wwwmm wan rru-mmmwmamwwwa rvnwm MWUKI M51?" mmmwflmtwm WEWW %WW%'§' Q?   

AGED 76 YEARS

CJCC: AGRICULTURE
RIA KOHRNGE HOUEE
ARAS  F03'?
BELTHAJVGAIJI TALIIK
B K I)IBTRICT,.

[BY 3121 mmcmmm R max, 

mm WRIT PETI'I'§GI€.__$~ F11-LEI}. IJ£'?€3'E'I-Z« ARTICLEE 226
as 227 GF THE coHs'rr1'u''rzQH . .1531?'  Pkavuxa T0
QUASK THE omzamz I)A'£'£1_)_1i,G9.1.98"I'~ Pi§S8B'D BY 'I"HE
R2 LAND 'ra}BUN5L .11? $0 'm:r:_ Ag__C£)l~.'§3r'-'REG THE
QGCUFARCY  'cw '1'I~IE'   0.34
scam m S _Y;R'O.i.QO1g1 .;s:;>1r... I§;A'L'h'.Y.&DAKA muss,
BELTHABGABI éramx, £'3..K.BIi$'IfRI£T  ANX-A.

mas' " i$E*i*¥if3x;)N'7'§. 51? mg PRELILERARY
mama :-:5 '5' c}R:::';:£§%r§11*s_I:Aa',-THE comm mam THE
mamwmce: -  =    

  _ %o"3  R

    " 'QM MMMM R Ram harxaed Gmmzmmz

 for rmpondents Ivlcul and 2

V Vvsince  am umapxfited. Tim third'

AT   'Ike. mtmrm im befczzra thiw Caurt making' for
  af writ as mrmm tn quash am nrdm* am

I1.Q9.1§81 in 4:;-aw N$.LRY 341' 7'4-=75{2)! 7€'r-'3'? pamad

«é

up
a

  .

mans nmnammfimmm Maw?! HWUKE Ki?’ mnatmmamnm Mfimfi uwwm W?’ W55%N§°’vE;M5fil.i’§.M i”‘§i§.$fH RUM?

by firm smond mspondesnt-Land Tribunal

grant ef umupancy ts in V

maeasursng’ 84 cenm Em Survey HGJVCQ/’ a ‘ .

wnaga,Bentm;gga1’ra1uk, K R

3. The ihcbs which that the
padfigmr and mg and in
wet cf the
firm” 5 ~ 1 V V Subsequmxfly on
naming ‘ t Act,

that ;:ve’::itisn:«x1.te~aV:;;L’fiJs;-245?. A 1%.? £11 raw: 0!” the mom

to his share, while the third

ma” wwemflan mwwrnw

filed 3 aeparahe Form No.7 in

W,A./m&pwg% % ¢f which had beam gamed ts his slmm.

— an rival zzlaim w§.th ward tr: any of

nuwzsm axrwngst the paifianar and the

h rmpaozltieexztf, separate arm held’ in

cf rawpeetiw Farm 210.?’ which had bmfikxi by

42

no

mom-w. mwxmvuu umwvmrhuu warm

xummnwmmnnww unwrri ‘%m«’w!”%»a9W!fi WV mmnmménrmn Niwfi fiafififlfimi WW KMWWWEAKFK H553

claim at’ the petitiaonttr hm-ein, the Land Tribguiéiét
granted amtmpancy right in :respe__Vc!;.»_:_:4f ‘V

irxdioated in the erdex dam 21.10. aLf;~4L’5_;11r>:e:«:1.:x~r..:

‘G’ ?x: the petitizm.

pefiizionar is alac trm cf 1
mmurixg 1 acre 32 had
mt made any % Survey
Hum/1. caqpysf Razz filed by
the tltairci ‘N’ would indicate
that the %rm had made cum in

rmpect af ‘ 34 cantas in Survey

fv?a,A11C# [i°1.5>_ wlufle considmxng the Form

of the same E5; arm :iam&

aim are ‘A’ while mticm the claim

far 84 cam: in Survey Ncnllfif 1. Hewavezr

V yamizg the Iand at: am: af $4» cents in Survey
k%F%&%«%k%%%::’e.1oo;: has new gm-mm imsead of 119:1. The

é

*W”*-“””n'<'~n WNW" N-N-"Mn! KM I\Hm*veM:Hu\M Hymn Luufis Ur nnnwmwmm Mimi': MUUKE U?" l&MKN'A!fl§£M MEMM LOU!

petitmer mwm mt being party to

Pmme&i% was not aware ofthe H ' ' : " . "

4. One other aspect of
be netioed ‘m that am r¢a;§§:1am;; fact
was bafom thk Caurt ‘qrcier dated
11,09,193: ha Gtthmr
cmjmmt in fifLéi_ _ –

Caurt in v.*.P.N§.S2¥i;.; ;i”ha..:*rrm~9a’§’ nm in the am
‘ $ of martaxxd survey

nummrs far been made. Therefore this

tn the Trzibuzml cmly he

arm the said survey numbem

‘»…v,f::r’ bmn made by the third xmpondant.
& fin such &i£’et:1’3′.oz1a by th’m Court,
has disposed at’ the mm qr its ordm”

V 22.123392 as at Anrmzre ‘Q’ 13:: the petition. A
gr the said arder Wculd ir1dk:ats that whilcz
passing the suhswumt ardmg Elm Tribunal in fact has

«i

‘-1

2

w::t”‘v¢w»r’1tm%uv’fi. vuaaumcnmw wwwnn wm mmmwwmnmawm Hymn MMUK! W? fiflfiwfliflfifl NEW” Hwwfiui 5}?”

gantacl ‘ths: attmzt of 84 mans in Survey I’i’o._J.~Z§i§I’
t}mth1rd’ rmpondent has:-min’ gfthé ‘4 ‘V

111$ Pfititioner hmwmx’ has 110 ‘ A

5. In the mm: of the:

qumsan whiz}: new sex» is xzmly
with ma;-d -no % %[L%:;:f s<~ Survay
HGJOOI 3. ciespihe
than the same meraesno
than erda: Tliw sequent}: netioed

fact that the third respoxfient

iwriier and an mend has lame;

91' 34 mm 233. sumy Hmllfifi and

– saxnée itxzuciicam that the thirfi rapnndmxi 5:11
X had mt cxaim the pmmty in Survey
A zmmsurirsg 34 camts. ‘rum-gas:-5 having
the we Farm 1%.? namely me filcad by the
wfifiaxmmfionefikdlytheflfirérmwndmnmfiakfl

§

4″,
rs

W Mum» mwuna wr nnmvnanma mmzm LUUKE KM” wmmmmm HEGH CQUR? OF K&RNAYfiaK.fl%’% HIGH COW

the gm: af Survey Nc>.110,I1 msmufim 84
thud” respondemt, it apyears that_ “. u ‘V

mmm-mg” 84 cam in survey Nov.iOQ'{1~:V

dated 11.99.1981 by the
rmpondmt E an obirfiaqg the
said meat of land rm: in the
tam} extent of I vs;r,:§c__32 gamma’!
tn the 21.10.1973
which héé been queettioneai
by the A

ixmafar as the grain: of the

84 :.’.e11m in survey
dated zmgggm m fawur cf
mxflmt he augtaixmg In the ma
‘A the oréer éated 11.39.1981 stanfis quaahfi.
V cztlrzm § the said murder 311311 stand

i.

#3

3
In mm ufthe abaw, the petifion stgzzfqtia .4
of.N<:rdm:*astz>caam. V F ‘ ‘V
sax»
ca/..

gfifiu 33:; §§.w£§K§£ £3 mE§§§ Emit ggmggflg .33. 35333. §§uw_u fa§a..§.rar¢€.9L.§ 53 :.?..a§r3 __:._§….§ F3..s…§_..:.s{.s…§. .§…..,u_.,.§ii .7… ,