Sri. ]L, Pavindra v. The State of Karuataka

Heard Sri. P.M. Narayanaswamy, learned advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. Jagadeesh Mundaragi. learned Additional Government Advocate 1 l ())t1 it t EicIf(fIt%j’ld(It’11) I. hit In in ‘h I’%L • I Ia irg’ntan’ a ‘lu leai ni C’ I,: t ‘1t l’ rj.,I I I t ) ( I ti’ k 1 ciici IA tinnia 1% ha e pal rhj’c d the land’, ii’ qi ie&4 11)11 i nch i nrc ‘t parate %alc deeds (llted lb.3 2004 tu an ixt’ntoll’ert ticl.lr %1 e Nc’l ‘4 ic 111 tuab. d at Mahack’ a Kndigehalh illagc •Ja1’ I3tnt, ak’rc North T luk trout Sri .rnn Ktirnar Kuiinna and his children 1w i aL Ic bit ( i isd 1 1(11 3 i ticu ii iPir 1% . itn ar dS tarn o thc ii Ce(difl4’ and ‘ i’huut 1%suind notict ro tltt petlnoii(’rs. irnpttwied ordn s haiti btcn passed again% tEa si. 10) c I 1 ic ) t ‘. r 1 I W1 1 r ‘C 1 r iii qiicstIoh:. t is 1%’ C1’tCti’s ‘1 iliT ‘rIlII. i iIii t’’t • Ii - !tcis, ii.c r.thl n ‘c zi.’-t • - • se-i $ • ci t.’ ii 11F • %,.1 •i’1’ vf I ‘lij 1 • ‘ : I-a—-’ I • I.. $ ‘—;‘-:i ,

.‘i I I I,. 1 1L 1 i1j l • ‘ II - I i’nputii ‘d ‘ide h iiu iOlanVe ill p11th hilt’. ft tuituriti ii”,IILC 4lfll P. liable ‘o be ‘it’ p4.. •1. I. lt1tlt’l C)ItItitflhll’tl 11 urint 1 pt till ncr Ut t a n H i 1’ n 1’. qun$lor liann’4 been “onveflc C to non aaricultm *1 rt.sjdenijjl ),irpcise r’—venuc r•iltlit”, u ic not can ltd out b .iie authorities in the rcenue recold and d% iaamc of tilt ptlitioner do not 1111(1 rI piare in thr’ rrven’Ie rrorih mci as %tirb 2 respoiidc’nt i)c piny C i an inisslone. t’)fllflhit te’l a S( tar, 01 iii pdsslIlt tnt lmputne.i ‘rder a,sn.i’t ih.— pertw wh’ did :mt ‘in’. cfl s ib is ‘n.i r uht til t. nte’c’l at tb

trt €trd t( I tim’ H &IicJ It I inyi..n I Ci ) r r ct1c ir 1 1 11 t ILL. can 1— (1 1 ‘1. L’i%f’ If 4t •fls 1 1’ • 1 IL .1. ‘ ; ; ‘it C I • .1 .‘ .1 • •I ) 2 i (‘spoil k-in lit t ii I? i ‘(, mi icr In i lix si i linlit o dii mot. itil pric1n.’ed brtt’tc LIll ..tjItit .‘. S I -JaW dec sh MUI1(IaIavi lea, ii’ ii ‘Idfth

i- ii ; ‘u r rici Si o ‘t ipp itint. I thin it) vn 11 ‘-,Lippc rt ii- c hnpugned nub r wo’ld admit that Iirin.ziccl ii ‘ lUllS c- s)flS l n cld P” 4 nck ni r k I Ii tic - i y ibsl’,t rig i ight. 11th €anth tnt er’ st ci it the pr)pcr Us ii qi sin ‘n’c a inc sill ti amt c the l)ett o i brs Ii ren A p i usal c,t the iu1)ug1lc’4 nrckar v.uld cli i-i- ç t ‘,li) 1 i % (flLl (spti kit LU lUte 1 ‘ii mint ) pr’ C ttdjflcz, iziuler - %(( thin t’J ot ‘e-’t ‘ii 1 ‘ 3 ci 1 t I’: i h It IT c ‘ . i I jr ‘flit dat hrcl% ‘ i’ ‘slion tilt (r t mr ic )I Linu1 ai. (l ill - rjjt i i C ,I flhI La’i Pfl( I - rn Sn,’ \d’tfi’i \Ii I’ ‘ I i ‘p i’l -t i it1-11. I ‘ I C’ (J), (V(fl1 C C )iIJ)V’ %Jjf II) Ii Ii -1 Ic ‘I • I . Sif ‘ It $t •. -6- Writ Petitions would clearly show that petitioner/vendor along with his family members namely wife, children have sold or conveyed the properties in question in favour of the petitioners for valuable consideration. A perusal of the said document would also go to show that these lands have been converted to non agricukural residential purposes by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore vide order No..ALN.SR. (ANA) 22/95-96 on