Karnataka High Court
Smt Savithramma W/O Krishnegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 20 April, 2012
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
1
IN 111 E 111 Gil G 01. RI' OF KARNATAKA A F BANGAI SORE
DA FF1) TIllS THE 20' DA' OF APRIL. 2012
BEFORE
THE TIONBLE MRJUSTI('E IIULUVADI 0 RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NOs 12815 8ic OF 2012 (LR SUG TF)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAVITI IPAMMA.
W/O KRJSIINE GC)WDA.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2 SRI KRISI INEGOWDA.
S/0 CIIANNE GOWDA,
AGED ABoUT 10 YEARS.
RESIDING AT I OKANAIIALLI
SAN FHFF3AC'IIAI IALLI 1101311
KRISHNRAJAPE'1 TAT 1. K
'vIANDY DISTRIC 1 P111 1'ION[3R
LBY 'R1 K N I LTTE( OWD \. 'd)\
I F \RNAIAV
I MF 1' 01 RI EN
II N 01 I)IIA,
3 \NG 31 ORE 560 (;O 1
SFA [ED BY fl SEC
1fl 1)1 F ((\IVISSIO\LR
1)T
J\\ )3 lFd( [ 31 \\iYy\
A IJ
THEStVRIT PETFflONt ' FILED uNDER ARI1CLES 226 &
227 OF ThE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 1 0620 10 PASSED BY THE RF.SPONDENT NO. 2.
VIDE AXNEXURE D AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO
TREAT THE APPLICATION PILED IN FORM NO. 7A AS FC)RM
NO, 1 AND To PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER BY CONFIRMING THE
OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AND
ETC
THEPETJTIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard.
2. An application is said to have been tiled by the petitioners in Form Jo,7A beibre the competent authority. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner. the property in question comes within the purview of Mysore IReligious and Charitabid) Inam bohtion Act The application should have been filed under Form No. 1, instead of that, Form No,7A has been filed due to i.lstaken 'I pt scn 3 3 uording to the learned counsel. Form No 7A filed cam- to he disposed of by th rcpondciit authority statmg that Form No, 1 ought to have been filed.
Whn the benefit has been extended under the Land Reforms Act br claiming tenancy rights upon those who have not flied form No 7 by the Amendment Act, and under a mistaken impression. petitioner has filed Form No,7A instead of Form No.1, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Form No, 7A filed has to be treated as Form No, I or in the alternative, a per Section 9 of the Act nientioned boxe he is also ntitlcd foi grant I ppars h mpugnco idr passed 1 the Deput C omm Isslolwr, Mandva. is wllhnut akhi ir1 consideraeion 'i h stnr f i,c ac and al,i i1 'ntit1en. ill f p( 11tiOi(i ill 1 r)f(j3 at (( wilL 19\\, I (I 01 \o ic filed 'vnhn in I d In in n,i 1 1 * I ('II (ii 1' 1 rj t I 1 i- , r 4 filed in Form No. I and dispose of the matter. also taking into consideration Section 9 of the Act,
6. The impugned order at Annexure D is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, for consideration of application after hearing the petitioner and pass appropriate orders takiHg into consideration Section 9 of the Act and other related provisions.
Pet Ltiorrt' disposed of accordin1v, j