Karnataka High Court · 2009

Judgment

2. 3

4. SRI NANJUNDAIAH 5/0 LATE CHIKKABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS SRi. GOWIIAMMA W/ 0 LATE CHIKKABASAPPA AGEDABOUT60YERS — ‘r SRi MJYEASWAMMAL4H HI J AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS HiiHIAtnbAARn P’’ * ‘- SR’ BASAVEAJU z;n A’3ELABOUT33YEABS iA,. ALL ARE RESIDING AT LIIIGADE E RAHITDLAHA LI KZHILARIAIIOE I DELrYEAHALI ALAR BANOALOPE HI rEAL DISTIllS I BANGALORE CITY UT :OU PROTHISIT T HE SEAR AD’S PETITIONERS I. THE STATE OF EARNATAKA EFEISESEL $EE’ c:r Ji2 r’ Cc’”ct*c4J vci( cLc,’tbe c’ t&-L t/’VEA’1 c — pH VIDHAIUi• S000HA BANOALORE 3f4) 031 i 4ffl TRPUW CaM USSIONER BANOALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANSGAUCRE

3. 4

SRI LINGADEVARA MUTT (HLJNASAMARANAHALLI MUTh REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER FNAS4M4RANAHPLU LIE.VANAHAt4!...LI TALUK BANG:ALORE Rur. DISTRICT PIT:. TAH link!.: REM?ESENTED BY ITS CFL4L MAN DEVANM.kLLI TALUK BANGALO. RE.: RURA1. DISTRICT RESPfDNDENTS (B:Y SALt. K. SARCkJINI MUTHAITNA, AGA) Thib WRIT PLt[ON IS FILED LJND’ ARTICLE.S 226 8s 1.27 C.F Coi:.s.TrruTIcN LW flf[]•jp• PR.VfluiG TI) QUASH THE ORDER LIT 2im2tx33 ‘ODE ANN K PAStEl) BY HE) LEES ]IQ.49/9 03 AN]) flfl fir. ‘nfl nnry fl. fit mm’ flr fln rr. a nnyr. ran fin &nm r’ni1icn ‘UvLe.’Ur rUtm ntnmmses Ittib DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING QWfl5P PtkxnerNo. 1,3arid4ara the chiidrencjf late lifbwa03a and petitioner N.th2 is that wife of late Chikkahasapj.n Thene claim that their f.hther,’ husband reepeoth.ely was the arohal of respondent No13 j.1ng.:..varI. Mutt di f haffi taluk. After abollticn U C, z g 0 t U U U 111 P corrnnu’d to he ii orrup ton ver is exen f Ian 1or ithaca they made at tflis at Fr c’ -flrtation of ‘ups doe ‘aty ighte bvour of the petitioners Being a4griin’ed it the same reed nih o beret) Co’ir g a a allowed abe matter rca eecanhd to Ito Der it Cornndssioner for ficsh dispcsin. Since the Depu a r Ac itt tr of the i9 At) Cli 1155 ne’ 13 283ro3 r RF ‘The as per 101 F d at) a U Pt Ic F S p fulle C:pC.n It pOt tOrs :5 t’ F f C t r t lao t11ct 01 0 a C U a: provisdns of law, snda Pula 17 Ci tlr Karnataka Land Reforms Rules 1974 end alan See 30 of the Mysore R jous and Ch ) Irate Abel Act SO Contra t B, 0) the learn al a s though, th e was a snail I e on the part petitioners in placing rnatena!s end alec addumng evidence on their behalf, hut tndt should not deiw the benefit itself provided under the Land Reforms Rules and ao Sjsore man (le 41 15 anc Cha ble) Abel cM C He ttials Lienuty issun tr to a a tic 3 The learned curacl t01 ‘hr 9ow’rnrnent bmmttd that tue Dry: b Sb it arts passe yin in lien it rpm’ net Nh be9n 4 1 law heard the eiw mefl made by coth the D8flL 3 It is found from the submissions made liv the learned counsel for the petitionen that after the Writ Petition was disposed air’ matter was remanded to the tleputy Conrnissloner toe t)eputi Comnnssior,er law provided II. 11 opportunity litioners under & A) table) loam Aix a d rection to parties ha (Religious and I could hew neofti hcffick r enquiry I r evidence and examrnmg themselvs C on’ scioner an’ is toe comoetent and j jitj the nartes bout the n’4sjo is is or evainale tar their benert in thtee tageb ,ri° snoi e than I ‘n page the heputy on’ anus to- s ‘as cO tote on’1 to the ‘a a1 o I o e U suive numbers and caoee whth were rer1anaed by the Court Pursuant to the notice parts appeared% They e t w a a a them to place niatereds and a. o adduce eisa ace n 7 51Yfl a direction was issued directing the parties to Wi S is a n equ ners w I their written argument along with available reconis Onprcu otion fther orda eflep jCon issione shout ng thrt Lort nat See- 0 of the Mvsore (Religious and Charitable) Inam Abolition Act t Rewnue Officer could taw her dr’ected to a a a abow, specs found n’ the mit ugoed r ire, the same is tea xut to 1w anterfer with 6 The Land inns Ac is a sac egieiahcr, which a erscted. b” the irgsrure in e a Ira 055 n V. assgnai o render ; nae nit icr the trov hess of lea U S no as t ak 11 s a justice to the parties. The parnes who approach the out uner L4&fon A asualiy Lhe) are illiterate, ignorant and agricukurints They would not ho in a position to make a’ndlable the scat wK ha req wed urn th pro Under these circumstances it is the fundamental duty a retnu flit a Commissioner to give fullest opportunity in aocordance a ten sing e no sirnand a in parties. Hence, I find that in the interest of justice and and also n order to rend r j tice a the part ‘is and .o acrnew the bjec of and Refo ins Act and Rules, I pars the following order The impugned order at Annex’r K’ in LRF 1PM Al h s f LRF INM NC 40/9&99 dr s 8 2’3 is restored to file The stt a dthe pi o am nm sna ac h ‘r let R further directed the Depu Commissioner shall pnivide fuiketoppprtuni and also A dSa the Mysore (Religious a sl Charitable) mare Ahelitition Act 1955 and pass appropriate order at the arlies iut a bay six a tithe eceipt copy I this or. apar hefore tputy Coreraissioner without waith for an) notice from tie office on 30A 1otmoer A)9 take nba isinliereacte Writ thion is allowed acccrding’v Sd! JUDGE 8N