IN THE HEGK COURT CF KARNATAKA AT BRNGALORE EATED THES THE 26% DAY 0? MAR€H 2009 PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR:
END _~m-
THE HGN’BLE MR. Jéswica fi:S§ PACHHAPq§5 :*x”””
WRIT APPEAL §Q.77§8″§§ é8Q3 ;§Lc§VV
BETWEEN:
U.A.Easheer, V , g
s/o. U.A.Umma:ab5é,V _ .
Aged about $0 yeafs;,’v5.”»f] 2»-
Rep. by his 3,9.a, Hulda: U,B.M§idin,
Aged abeut”43 yeaf$; ” ‘ “”W”
5/0. late Gulémg_,” , ;_.
Both are rfat’Akkare=Kére;_
Ulial Village afid 9bst; “*’
Mangaioze Talak. ‘ °v.”
ou-
_.{By.3g:.*H.c.Eetsg;,.Adv.}
rRND:,:
1[.T§g State of”Karnataka,
Rap. by ips’Secretary,
Department of Urban fiavalcpment,
M.S.Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
“xBangaldre–568 $61.
“‘Z;,?he:Beputy Commiasioner
‘and Competent Authority,
V Hiurban Land Ceiiing & Regalation},
V’Mangalore Agglomeration,
Maagalore, B.K. Bistrict.
{By Sri. H.M.Manjunath, A§A.}
§t”~3(‘J(
APPELLANTXS
RES?OfiDENT/S
“*l”Village,’~measuring in all 3 acres 11 cents.
l’m,§elay.
WA NQ.??58/O3
lhis Writ Aggeal is filed ufSec.§ ofi the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside fihe
Grder passad in W.P. No.3§449!Gl, dated 21.1$,£QG§;u
This Writ Appeal coming on fez ,§relimia%$y’v
Hearing, this day Kumar J., delivered the fQllcwingfu °
J8DGME:gjIj” « A
The aygeilant has ghalléngéfi in ffifiié ‘wfiiW
appeal the order pasaed by théKlearne§”sin§le budge,
dismissing” his petitiap, ‘w§er§*’fie_ has “sought for
guashing of Annexurasv”A”:§ C”Ql
2. Thé Ofidef pasééfi by tfie*Deputy Cemmissioner
and Cdmpeténfi it flfit§0riE§}”fl Mangalore Urban
Agglamefiatidgf udder ‘Sécéifinl 10 of the Urban Land
(Ceiling 52¢ .Régul§fi§n§ Act l9?6 [hereinafter
-;efer:§d {O as “thg Act” far shertfi an 05.12.1994 is
irin re3pe¢t_0fit§e declaratien filed an 15.06.1984 by
ofiei§;i{“?adm%fiébha under Section 6(1) of the Act
Vi with fiegaffivfio 5 survey numbers, aituated at Ullal
In
4″fé;t;_$here was fielay is filing the declaration. it
«i_@ggf filefi with an application for condanatien of
The said Sri. Padmanabha is the son of Smt.
Nému Sapalathy. la the saié daclaration, he
declared that the said preperty belongs to his
Q/”
3 Wfi N0.??S8/$3
mather Smt. Nemu Sapalathy and sister Korapalelu
Sapalathy aad 10 perssns having share &F@%k!Hfie
undivided joint family proparty. After thémdeéfigfcffl
Smt. Nemu Sapalathy- in 1977, they had~.§§§é¢fied.!é”
§artition. Their individual 1_sha;.mé j; i3 ” w’i–t4§3’i’::..__ t…m’
ceiling limit. There arerffi re3id%ntiaIAbuildifiq3″.
and 2 non-residential ‘buildings, *-feéi which
appurtenant land to Eéia;i§w§&[ai%fir§her an extent
cf 0.22 cents was $§id_ fin? f9.§§.i§75 to Sri.
Chandappa and §f§;§gfi3k§ré $é§$éct§§eiy, wfiich may
be deleted %i0%i%E%’a§§§fifit;iRfidwéver, in pursuance
to the fib€iceiisg§§d by tfiéfléfiihczities, he did not
aygear iafifiii §i§i|Vn%fix:D§fioduce any documents.
Therefore, thé-afifihépififi faund that the total land
~Qwne@ by them is §§;S97.92 sq.mtrs., out of which
i*§he§* §ra Kenfiitied. to held 8,387.?8 sq.mtr3. ané
t§é{é§Q:é«%he*béiance 5,210.14 3 .mtrs. is in axcess
. ,. _ Q
V amfi é deéi&rétion was made ta that effect with a
‘”iidir@¢ti3§~ ta surrender that exsess vacant land.
4″§finéxures–“B and C” are the prsceedings initiated in
“pg:éaance @f the said Order. Annexure~”C” is the
R’m_énd0rsement ifisued to Sri. U.A.Basheer, refiecting
his request. it is 5130 on récoxd that subsequently
on 28.03.198é a Paztiticn Daeé came to be executed
_acco§dingly the wzit petition came to be dismifised.
=Aga;n$t_fihgu§ai¢ Order, the appallant is before us.
Vuu_ué@pelian€}_éabmitted that the impugned Qrder is
*u §a§$éd, without n$tice ts him. Therefcre, it is
=1i%§ié ta be set aside Gfi the short ground.
” §ééCnd2y, he santends that the property which he has
‘purchased fram his V@§dO£ hag fallen to the share of
4 WA N0.7758!G3
between the members af tha said family and Sy.
fio.33f3A fell to the share of Smt. Leela Sapalathy.
?h@ patitienex has yurchasfid the said property Exam
5%: under a ragistered Sale Deed dated 2fiw§%;駧§,
when he noticad that in zespect 0f the %aifi iénfi;u –
the Government is shown as Gwneé; he fiad§ §# éfififiigy
aad then came to know the pr0§éQ$éfi§s. it Lg ffiéfi
the petitionar has prefégfiéd th€ w;it_”§étifii0n,
challenging Ann§xuresflfA tQ ¢§g*V&hé léarned singie
Jadge has dis$ié§éd §hei3%i§*§%£i§ign on the ground
that the fi%t§t§5fiéfi:*5§§* féi§e& ta produce tfie
part1ti§fi”de%fiysg§wjfi§flt§@ ééi§ property is fallen
to the ghafé of Egg v§@§§: énd therefore, he was the
View that th%£e was n@7m@rit in the petition and
‘ 3L . Thef learned cognsel appearing far the
hi3 veadar under a registered Paxtitian Seed dated
R/.
*§a3s$fig fihQxOEdé§+.HEflSGf&r _____ as title to the iand is
v°$oa@exne§;.t§éqVery deClaratiQ§ shows that th@ said
.and ‘§mt; .Lééla Sapalathy. Therefore, the said
‘” 6%gl3§aZi§n was made on behalf 0f the joint family.
i5 é fiartition dead Came into existence after the
fl Act;’it is subject to the Grders to be passed in the
A “~af0ra3ai& praceeéings. In that View cf the mattar,
5 %A N0.7758fG3
Q9.Gi.198é, which is producefi alcng with the other
dscuments :0 the writ petition. Further, he $#§§its
that Sri. Padmanabha, who filed declarat§§fi @%§Ffi§.
right sveg the suit property and fiha$駧fié} CEQUV’
entire pxsaeedixgs is vitiated;
4. W@ do act finé amywfiéfiifi i§”%@fi§e%§ef the
contentions. In §i 535éa§§f?Q$ “fiilefi “by Sri.
Paémanabha unde: the Q:Q§is£§fi% &f’tfi§ get, the only
person who shéfififi he Eeagfi is $fi4 §admanabha. The
petitioner $%d_h§E aCéfii$gDg%§H%fifiefeSt priOr to the
Act 0r §ficf fig? fézifig ‘§fW £he declaration and
therefafé,:.%h&:fi%fl@bé%it$@fi. have no Gbligation ta
issue nctice *tQ gthe’¢§etitioner and hear befere
pfapé:ty j5inti§ belongs to Sri. Padmanabha’s mether
it cannot be said that thé deciaration filed did not
M//%