High Court Karnataka High Court

Thimmaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Thimmaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 September, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
              

  -- V ReveziaVe""I}cpa1't1nent,
 MtSV.Bui3(1iI1g,  ~1.

V 1  S2'.  Commissioner,

" E 4.  'Assistant Commissioner,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED TI-{IS THE 15% DAY OF SEPTEMBER  V
BEFORE    " _ % 
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT     .

WRIT PETITION NO. 15349/2oo4(scE–Ef1*)E%E % ; ‘E
BETWEEN: %{ %

Sri.’I’hiImnaiah,

S/ojatc Yarrajah,

Age: 48 ymrs,

Ooc: Cooli,

N.S.Je11iCrusher, __ . _ –

Kcmpanna Angel” V V V ‘

(By _Smt£f’admaVxVratf;i_ »’S.~»§avanur, Adv.)

1; Isiatg
Rt:ptc:scntet_} its
Sears-;taxy,. _ ‘

. A A’.’Cfx m District,

Tarikcrc Sub-Division,
Tarikcre.

. Dr.Narex1dra,
S/okudrappa,
Vishwanatha Nursing Home,
Halcflagarag Bhadravathi.

(By Sri.R.Devdass, AGA for R1 to’R3,” « ._ -3 . V ” ‘
Sri.Lakshn:1inarayan, Adv. fdr R4) A. ‘

M

This writ petition is filed At1;i(:’1¢;:V§.s”*2§36

227 of the Constitution of india ‘prayer”to__qu§ish
the ordar dated 22.09.2093 by R2 the” 13.0.,
Chikkamagalur District, “” ; ‘ _ xmr _Annexm’e
‘J’ and the orcim’ dated A.C.,
Tarikcrc Sub~Divisé<;fi,, =1{id¢A1'-1;1cxt§3'¥3 'D'.

This writ this day,
thccomt madcv a

_ Th3c_;fptfitiofie’I’ be the 1% representative
An extent of 2 acres of land was

of the petitioner pursuant to the
I966. The same was granted on a

” price 91′ Rs.100/- and Podhi fees sf
_ a condition that the lam snan not be
‘ fog’ a period of 15 yms. Stfioe it to say that
original g’antce Yarraiah alienated the said Land

pursuant to a reg’stcred exchange deed in favour of one

-3-

Thimmappa in vioiafion of the conditions of the
Copy of the said deed is at Annexure ‘C’. _
Thimmappa had sold the land in: 3 d
respondmlt pursuant to a
petitioner filed an = u
Commissioner under the Prcl. The
Assistant _app1icat.ion
pursuant to his o1fd<mf_ 1 that the
petitioner was. mg; g he is the

legal said order was
before the Deputy

Commissiontfig. the appeal. Indeed

has qucsticsncd the same order

.n'.V'§;ts'1__ has found that he had dismissed
of the pefitioner on an earlia oowsion
' the same order on 26.02.2002. Hence, he

dd to entertain the same.

the Deputy Oommissioner. The

2. I have perused the impugned orders passed by

I

fig

the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Assistmntfl

.4-

Commissioner and also heard the learned

appearing fix’ the parties.

3. The claim of the petitioner 1~.as

solely on the gmund that he has notméeté .

that he is the legal representativfe the

Indeed before lodging a is
required to prove that theya
of the on-igml of the
grant. They that they belong
to the deprfeeeegi of any material
to show satisfied the ixwedients,

I am of is not mlfitled to the

of Assistant Comm issioner was

the same has attamed’ final1ty’

es’ has not been questioned anywhere.

‘ a clear case of constructive’ res jud1ea1;a’ .

I do not find any merit in this petition.

VT “-‘Petition stands re}ected’ .

Rule discharged.

4. Mr.R.Devdass, teamed Additiona}

Advocate appeafmg for respondctnts 1 to 3 is ~ _

to file name ofappearance within R1131′ weeks. V

SP8