Sri Kalkuli Vittal Hegde vs The Assistant Commissioner on 11 August, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Kalkuli Vittal Hegde vs The Assistant Commissioner on 11 August, 2009

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

.E.

IN THE HIGH counrr or KARNATAKA,  .
DATED THIS THE 1 1th DAY 09' Aueusiif;  _: "  

BEFORE"  

THE} HUMBLE MR.JUS'I'ICE R}xM'1MAC)HA§f."R_EDDY'3':  V

WRIT PIETITION No. 132}33_0F 209$ (sit; S?) H 

SR1 KALKULI VIT'I'AL mzemr,
S/OMARIYAPPA:::'EGm«3""""~.} _  
AGEDAB0uT51'Y.E.'«aRS:._ =:  _ 
MAT:-%ADAGA:):':)E,s';:%'__.;_ ~  _    »
SRINGERI, ';?Q:S"RINGERI"'-fl':«.  ,
CHIKKAMAGALUR1I;QIS1'.RfCT' " « 
    ~  PE'I'I'I'IONER

(By an: :'"::r=¢ P ;<ULK;;§ré3§i:., A;éV«  )

AND: _

 "1 _ '"*rHﬁ'%.AsS11s*TAN'r COMMISSIONER

 "'eaiI{I<:x1v:a;'G;{M,UR SUB DIVISION
-;-c§1;vKImLriA_GALUR

  2 "*:fHE,%'frm§s§L:aAR, SRINGERI 'TALUK

V SRINGERI
 AA TGHIJKAMAGALUR SISFRICT

   *  B SHEKHAR S/O BELLAYYA

 AGED A890'? 35 YEARS
 I-IANUMANTHNAGAR KERE
ANJAN EYA mm
SRINGERI
D£S'I':CHIKKAMAGALUR E 

5"\



-3-

under Section '?"?--A of the Act, which 

questioned be:ti;)re the Karnataka Appellate .. 

Appeals No.32 and 3:21 of 2008,: are ' 'aaﬁd 

consideration.

2. It is the allegation  théit on the I

representation dt.3.10f§{3(}?  of mspontients 3
and 4, the list rﬁspondgxlvf-.%ssi:.  passed an
orderr, thoughf 'd0féS'V ﬂot":disClose any oztier

but the    'Vague' office of the Asst.

Cemm1§s1o:;@:Jv#'.%--.+ag&%.,%m§§:x1m.gg the date 11.10.2001? and
alphabets   contention that Am:u::xure$--D

and E«,,beiz1'§ ﬁie'  Whcreunder possession of the

 v   qucﬁtion wéL$' iiian:.iee¥. over £0 Itspondents 3 and 4, is

  'ta  PFCL Act is again is far from smth.

 3.  that the petitioner ﬁled two appeals caﬁing

W   qlgesﬁéftz the grant of iand to the father of respondmzts 3

  'a".:%_1Vﬂ'4 uI1c¥er Section 737-33 of the Act 1961, and the rejectien

 {i¢f:§.h€ peﬁﬁanefs appiicatietm in Form N0.?'A under Sectivn

" V 77~«A <)fthe Act and in which no intcrim orders are granted,

% ;r\?.__{-
9,5



-4-

in the matter of deiivcry of possession, in the cir¢u}m§$~'zaﬁ&cs;« %

the handing over of possession of the land 31 ._ 

the authority, to respondents 3

characterised as arbitrary for i;ﬁu=.1ferc:nécAi}t1 .ex£51rc§ise " , of extraordinary writ jurisﬂiggﬁon. éppiiﬁaﬁon, Annexum---C, of the rezépgndaﬁiﬁ .. is«'f51*VA{VVivt:liverjgr of possessicm, which has 'accordance with iaw by dzawipgﬁije and E. This action by no' céuld be said, that the Asst. Comznissiigiétﬁ; 'j 1u'ié:<:iictio11 under The Kanlataka : .+;§1c: Schedtlled Tribes (¥';voh;ibi1:ion oft: Lands) Act, 1978, to deliver pc:i3.s#::S$i:on of the to rcspondcnts 3 and 4.

" s is, aacoﬁmgiy mjectmi.

sa/~ Iudge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court