Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sheshappa S/O Siddappa Hosatti vs Bandhanwaj S/O Guresaheb Pendari on 18 October, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN IIIIEEIIERIIERHAKTIIIPSIIAHIIIT DATED THIS C')j:1A;§fjQVI(:3.'I'QBER 2011 THE HoN.%ELE1-.MR.JLISTIC.E"~CRAM MCHAN REDDY WRIT PETITIQN 0, 64 127 _ 01; 20 1'G'(KLR-RR[ SUR) BETWEENT 5 I SRI. SHESHAREA I _ S /0 SIDDAPPA Hos.A'TTI AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: .ACI.RIC_UETURE CHAIRMAN} SRI. H'TJLKANTHESHWAR DEVASTAN TRUST CoM~MI'I'TEE., KHAIIADAL RAL; 'RAMDURG, DIST. BELGAUM ' ..... PETITIONER _ . :(BY_VSRI. 'B%.E,vRUqAR, ADV.) I: BANDHANWAJ S,«:_'o GURESAI-IEB PENDARI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/-O RAMDULLAH KHAN C I GUMMAT MASJIT WAHIWTDAR R/O RAIBAG, TAL. RAIBAG DIST. BELGAUM THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT WAKF COMMITTEE BELGAUM 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELGAUM DIST. BELGAUM M -2- 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SUB--DI\/ISION, CHIKKODI >- DIST. BELGAUM I 5. THE TAHASILDAR RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM ,. (BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, AGA) , THIS WP FILED UNDERI-..AR*'T.__2I26_=,AI«ID 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND,IAv«vPRAYI--No To OLIASH THE ORDER DATED:o9/03/.2oIo;;. PAissED.,'..IN-«.R'BR_TA.' égo/2006-07, ON THE FILE OF THIRD RI4j;sP_ONDENT AS» PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALsO THE ORDER P_.!'iSSIED'---BY'*i'HE -FOURTH RESPONDENT IN RTs.
APPEAL ____ __NOQiss/.::;_oVo2:_2'o.o3 " DAT_ED:o3/02/2006, AS PER ANNE:v:URE;I3.,.fMAD'E 'INI«'A_VOu'R OF REsPONDENTs No.1 AND I ...IvREsPO,ND.ENTs > 2, IN REsPEcT'OI4?j SIIEJECT LAND BY THE RESPONDENT No.5. , y - « THIS-,_PETIT1'QN'COMI'NG ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COL-'--RT'*MA@§2TB%§I.LOWING:
Theclaimiiiofiiithe petitioner of having acquired interest in the immovable property, foI1owe.d~ application to record his name in the Areventie' registers, when rejected by order dt.
29./:11/1999 of the Deputy Tahasiidar, Udachi, since Mnfjflal and binding, as it was not questioned in an apf/2&1, -3- this petition calling in question the order dt.
of the Asst. Commissioner, Chikkodi, in under Se<:.136(2) of the Karnataka Land F:'.efo?rm.s* Aetz' 1964, and the order dt. 9/3/2-O10-.ineireiiisieiiixxuéiideté V' Sec.136(3) of the Act, of the Dépuigfi without merit. In my opihiQh'~~.the .Re.ve'ni1e: A{,:it'h0fities"' were justified in rejecting thsefieivision Petitic.n./i Petition is._accord.i:igiy 1. = Rd/-