IN THE HIGH COURT CJF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dateé this the 21' day of Juiy, 2908
Before _
HIE HUMBLE MR JUSHCE HHLWADI G K:4M.:ES1Ff..vVL'
Wra Pearson 4359 x 2933' (1.3 .; "V I V
Manager
Sri Krishnapur Mutt v ' ._ _
Car Street, Udupi _ ' '--?_e3ition.er
(By Sri P R Ranmh, Adv.) . L' '
And: 'V
Uc:iupiDistt§ct _ _ _ _* Respondent
(By Sri M 1<§s1;_as»a%Redd_§', AZGA) ' '~ -. " -
Writ Fétitién is filed under An.226;I227 of the Constitution
3 ta: 2,.ji3suae:.. a writ"df" prohibition prohibiting the respondent firom
'rprocéedi_ng finfihexvwim the action threatened in the notice dated 16.2.2008 --
aia;2:_1_:e'311.1_'c*.'N,v 'e1g;; - '
.' ' caming on for P:-eiiminary Hezarm' g this day, the
V V' _Co1n1n§'ade V-the -fzfllowing:
ORDER
éeufioneg has seught far a writ nf prohibition prohibiting tam
” = from proceeding fimher according to the notice dated 16.2.2008 –~»
A ‘ «élnexure N. yf
Petitioner is am to be the Manager of Knsamapur Mutt sflgdupx
The respondent is said to have been issuing tlmeatening
petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Ashta
agicultural lands which were cuttivated by: u b
The income generated through the lands i’£!1A§
running of the Matt and fitiifiéigtieng’ L’
Kxishnapur Man is said to my: filed on .i;3′.:.9fz4 per 3.66 vi’
the Land Reforms Act, 19$. .;§:cision of this Court,
the Mutt has got povfiw 1:» hoifi~ia§§1i?’f vv 2
nonEfiiél&ss the respondents have issued
notice petitioner to show cause as to why
penalty should Emt violation of 8.79 of the Land Reforrns Act
* an that ‘faélszi to give a declaration as per S.?9(B)(1)(2) of the
t1’3.ct’.” = I-_Ie:1§é~ ‘petition questioning the issuance of notice seeking for
Péfliduiars.’ V’ V’
AA Court having heard the matter for same time, riirected the
— of Udupi Tahlk ta be present before this Calm and aiso furnish the
“”pétticul:n’s and other relevant documents. However, expressing his
. A/gm . 3&7
inconvenience, that: Tahsildar hm deputed an omcer aiong with the Lffiaa.
>3”
In the report submitted, it is nnted, as per $.63 of m¢V.«L§;2a’:ii§:§§fing
Act, tin: Temple as wen as the Trust can hold lands to the gfizé A’ *
It is also noted, already the Land Tribunal ‘féike:3.a §:1as:’g’§§\n ‘
a finding that the lands held is well {[pagm;m
fimzished stating that this Mun is pé%§§si;1g 1§;1:)__ 1ams- ‘
which is about 6.04 units and antes A:3i_57.VViIA) vCI&3§ lanhdé” about 8.70
units. Thus, in all 14.74 units acres, is said to be
in posseasien ofthe Matt, V _ _ «V .
In the circuinsfifipaesi tire riotite i§”.a¢d–V hr§’–1he respondeni is berefi of
merit, evcfn sféhrzrgjfisiqn. As such, directing the petitioner
ts it is the duty on me part of the
respondent to ‘1:2afl:er, they are calling upon the petitioner
V’ “:9 regards in spite of the matter aiready being concluded
gm’: found te be well within limits. In that View of the
Ezissaad by the respondent is quashed.
” V “Petition is allowed. No costs.
3d/-..
Judge