" 5.'-a. "
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST mac}; ~
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A S'B.(3'f'ANi${A
WRIT PE'I'E'l'ION NO. 1{)40$3g.2;€}{§5 (L 1?<; - * % "
BE'I'WEEN :
VAGGANA RAMAPPA ,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS ms _
1
CHANDRAPPA 2 s-
S/Q LATE VAGGANEA RA§éAPfPA"_--.._ ' "
AGED AB_U'1;:3*z YEARS
S] C'. VAL 'RAMAPPA
AGED' 35 A3' "
mam. Bi? "£':HE}"OWE§.. OF ATTORNEY
ELOLEER s M-VKLEMAR S/O MALLANNA
"AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
' * --» RiAT"«Af2":'-.HE)K ROAD, SAGAR TOWN
V'_T.sH§1u;>e}AVT.:)':s'rRzcT
PETITIONERS
,5
L' [BY R ANYFHA, ADV" FOR
" SR1: "B R'UI)RAGC}WDA, ADV.)
THE LAND TREBUNAL
SAGAR, BY HS£ECRETARY
arr'
THE '§'AHSILDAR, SAGAR TALUK
SAGAR
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAGAR SUB-BIVISION
SAGAR, SHIMOGA DIST
3 THE TAHSILDAR
SAGAR TALUK, SAGAR '
SHIMGGA 9:31'
4 SRIDHARA, MAJOR
S/0 v'Em<A'rAG:RiYAPPA « "
R/O NEAR PARIMALA coI?1rAE'vwc3.Rxs
MARKET ROAD, SAGAR f
SHIMOGA ms'? 'A '-- L V'f.:.,£€E_SPONDENTS
(BY SR1: R B SATH¥ANA'RAYANA AS:INC3A¥+I,..:f€I'?f2{}P FOR R1-3
SR1: S V P;REE§:ASH,:=_Al}V».~"'FORf R4}.
'I'HiS WRET I3:;«':fi'.If1*i»:)r'si.SI_s'* -FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
35 22'? OF' 'THE c0:~is'1fiTI§TIi)N~-'OF INDIA, WFFH A PRAYER
TO; QUASi{_ * THE ';0RI;VER OF THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER; SA-.GA'£«*-: SUB--DIVISION SAGAR, VIDE
__ANX--IE'._§.&AN'.D PLEASED TO QUASH AN ENDORSEMENT
TSSUED' {BY TRHSILDAR, SAGAR TALUK, SAGAR
ISSUEIJ INNQ.'LRF. CR.106[O4-O5 DA'§'EE) 29.9.2005 VIDE
'ANX~§«l'; _I3:.RE.C'1:_ ms TAHSILDAR, SAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
sA{,;AR%.TG.Iss?3;:V"F0RM NO. 10 TO THE PETITZONERS IN
RESPECT OF'~L_AND MEASURING 1: ACRES 22 'X2 GUNTAS
IN ss*.:\n:;§.'63. on SANGALA VILLAGE, SAGAR TALUK,
SAGrAR,~INj_PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE LAND
'' " 4.44'-TSREBSIJHNAL-*i)A'i'ED 23.2. 198 1.
S V' Writ Petition coming on for hearing, this day,
made the following :
J
7-
"in
3
ORDER
The petitioner is calling in question the order
dated 8.10.1998 passed by the Land Tribunal,
Taluk which is impugied at Armexure F’ to the
The petitioner is also seeking for 9′
certiorari to quash the endorserizezinf 9’7-9
Tahsiidar which is impugied H,
2. The case of the father of
the mti£io{1ers’ivi’.}f;a_c”i5_sozig1}tfor occupancy rights in
respect of ‘the “S§.No.63 and TF2 of Sangaia
V villageé ‘Sagar Iivresent, the contention is only
the property in Sy.No.63 and to the
e:?é’;’teV:’*:’1_:iio”aé?i_2ieii;’tIie grant has been made and thereafter
9 99 has The oiaim of the petitioner is that the
right had been sought to the extent of 9
glzntas in Sy’.No.63. By the initial order which
9 been passed by the Land Tribunal, the entire extent
3
*2.
had been granted. But the grant was made ,4
measurement in respect of the property. ”
the review order, the extent has be~ei’i’
6 guntas in the said survey
dated 8. E01998 is q:1estioned;*v:.oi1:fiif;;e on
7.5.2005 by contendirg 1:5′ ipefifioners
knowiedge oniy when endoitseiiieiii was
issued. I0. 1998 had
been questiotied-;”w1éfiVe:3issi;1é§ iwihether the delay has
been expI2.eiz1ed_ is .a”eo11si.deration to be made in
the petition.” 4′
the contention ef the petitioner is
that of the said erder dated 8.10.98
which in the present petition. Since in the
order the entire extent had been ganted, it is in
iiregard the second petitioner herein had
‘ the Land Tribunal seeking for issue of form
J
‘n-
4
available in Section 48A(6) of the Karnataka
Reforms Act (‘the Act’ for short) provides for A4
rectification to be made and the only reqmre’ is ”
the party should be notified. In it
the second petitioner had taken
they cannot complain with to
reference is also made -to tI1e”peti’tioners
were aware of the said also acted
upon the SaIR6:.ii’}.’€}.S«fl1L:i_C1’1€ as entries were
also sec31red’te?¥1_1e’: extefittay way of ir1herits.nce
and at claim that they were not
aware of the ‘earlier proaseedings.
‘ 5, counsel for contesting respondents
to these aspects of the matter to point
out records as produced by him and also
to the proceedings to indicate that in fact the
it linother of the petitioners had also sought for permission
J
‘3
whether it was at the instance of the fat11eIj.e..o’ii’tVV”Iii¢… K
petitioners who had made application for Vi — M
whether at the instance of the
suomotu proceedings. It is xio_do1ibti:?ue “faras”» ‘V
the application said to have itiyi of
the petitioners, there as
such an endorsemeiib H _V But,
considering {tie has been
made the absence of
such could have
been taken the is to be considered
minis ffbsa, i
is assumed that the present
suomotu proceedings, all that was
4_ to”‘1’:>e done was to notify the parties before
the conclusion. In this regard, the order
A [maintained by the Tribuna} has been perused by
“r.
Court that they were not aware of the order passed in
the year 3998. in this regard, a reference is made tothe
Mahazar which is available at page 94 with ~
the actual extents ef the property which ‘ K
therein. In so far as the present j_
is e gent to the father of the _petitione–rs,i =
the mother of the petitioners’ _indiea1′;fl’edh”-I ‘dime
seeond petitioner has which
has been drawn. Theieafter which has
been dratwn subsequent to the
order of i§.98,ee the indicates that the same
has beenn1ade~–.i1§”tI1e.iVpresenee of the parties. In this
ai”ii?efe1’enee is aiso made to an application which
308 of the records which indicates
V it that eppiieation was made by the second petifioner
i H H K feel an order passed by the Ttibuxial with regard
vthejreduction of the extent and the said application
T been made on 14.1.$999. This would go to the root
name to be mutated and in that application also,
extent is indicated’ as 4 acres 6 «t it
stfesequently, the same has been indicated 3 ”
as well as the mutation order No.%§/ t
available in the records at page 3. 3
10. In addition to the the 1;r1et.I_*.a:eI”‘1,of “the
petitioners has also teade ‘ap:plication”‘ seeking
permission for sale of the been filed
as far back ~f.2_(_)€)3; as seen at page 162 of
the recorded’ of the matter would
V indie-€;1.§{¢ ‘Vthat theppetitieyners were aware of the order
1998 as early as in the year 1999
Viiaae”al’ee_ paflzicipated in all the proceedings in the
V V yea}: * “Therefore, in the year 2005 when the
H K filed, they could not have contended that
no opportunity in the proceedings which had
T ” made for the purpose of reducing the extent.
A
-“av
Accordingly, the petition being devoid gf
stands disposed of.
Aka] bms