- "I AASM'I'...SV1'iAKUNTALA BAPUGOWDA POLICE PATIL
" '3) SHARADABAI SOMANA GOUDA BIRADAR
R)
C. SMT. VIMAMMA SIDRAMAPPA PATIL \
MAJOR
RESIDING AT VADAVADAGI
BA8:"1'v'r"a.i'~fEi.f32'%IG E.I'v'v";"-xi") I TALU K
BIJAPUR DISTRICT.
D. SMT. SHANTHAMMA CHANNAPPA GOWDAV PATEL '
MAJOR I "
RESIDING AT KONNOOR "
MUDDEBIHAL TALUK * I ' '-- -
BIJAPUR DISTRICT.
E. SMT. DODDAMMA NINGANAGQUDA IIONNADI
MAJOR
RESIDING AT TAMADHADD.I _ ..
MUDDEBIHAL TALUK" ~ ' 1 '
BIJAPUR DISTRICT. '- ,_
F. Sm'. SHARAJJABEII SO1VL;AE\§AG'QUDA. _13{RADARA
MAJOR _ ~
RILSIDINC AT-'B..L.13« .C'O'I;ONy_R--
I3IJAI>II_R D~Is'TR:I_C_T. ., ' "
G. SMT; MAHAI3-DEVI BCASANAGOUDA PATIL
MAJOR', ' _
RESIDING TAT
MUDDEBIHALTALUK'~.--"
BIJAPUR DISTRICT. '
RH. V$RE;I1.E>"§31m.SIA.MMA MAIAKANGOUDA PATIL
' 1V1AJQRn ._
1. vREsI,DI»I\IAitfAT BINJALABHAVI
* IS'INDAG--I"f£'ALUK
BI¢I_APII~R DISTRICT.
.. IVIAJOR
" RESIDING AT KONNOORA
'MUDDEBIHAL TALUK
BIJAPUR DISTRICT.
W / O BIRADAR
the Reforms Act. Accordingly, the
Aideee_aisetl:'fitst'V'respondent filed an application in form
j No.l'=1 in_'diea'ting his holdings.
deceased fiI'St respondent was accepted in part and it
"Was found that the petitioner was in excess to an extent
R/ O ANGADAG PERI
ESASAVANAF-BAG EWADI
B {J AI-"U R
... Ri. IS FILED UNDER:}ii3lTICLiE<._226--n.{'3zb'~2,2V'7"lOFv7
THE CONSTITUTION op' INDIA PRAY}:-"SIG'TC)»._QUASH..l"EHEJ_i
ORDER VIDE ANNEX.C.DT.21.7.1993. '~ ~
THIS PETITION COi\/IIN'Gll"'*ON .F().R'Vv.PlREll;.1lll/lill\llARY V
HEARING IN 13' GROUP THIS Dg§_Y.-.jii~ii§: COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING: -
The first seeond7re'sp"o--ncient since deceased
were the _ if-arious lands totally
admeasi1i;inig"' 35 cgtintas. After the Land
Reformsfict _cam_e all the land owners were
requi_1'ed_ tolllfi-ile"al' declaration in Form No.11 under
the first instance, the application of the
1%
f
.
‘ ‘ ‘Stat’eC’is»~.’bei”o.re thisvllijoiirt.
3u””‘.__V”‘basis disrliable to be set~aside. He further submits the
_ ‘dela,y.5()f 9 years has been properly explained. inasmuch
4
of 229 acres 21 guritas. ‘l’l”1e said order was questioned
by the first respondent before this Court” in
W.P.No.30304/1981. This Court. allowed
petition and remanded the matter to the 1/
for fresh disposal. V
3. The learned Addl.
submits that time has ”
inasmuch as, the matter befdorethis Court
on an earlier the present, the
impugned a copy
of which indicating that the
deeeased respondent is only
to an guntas and directed to
surrender s’an1e..”.Aggrieved by the said order, the
V learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that
recorded by the Tribunal are without any
‘I’ribu1’1aI for fresh disposal. Needless to say, the __Lar1d
Tribunal Shaii issue notice to 211} the Ieg21l
deceased respondent Nos._1 and 2 and 4′
before taking the applicatioI1v.;~i11._4’f0:éffi’£ Ex?b’.iiVV1vTjf0i%..& ‘A u
consideration.
Rule is issued and made absoIu£e”;A.V”:’ _