SMT1 HAZARATH El v. A/C. LATE SHAIK HUSAINSAE SULEKAL
Case Details
Summary
A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.
Precedent status
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.
Original judgment text
SRI.HUSENSAB 5/0. KASHIMSAB SULEKAL AGE: 32 YEARS, RIO. KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. SRI.SHEKHUSEN 5/0. NANASAB SULEKAL AGE: 67 YEARS, RIO. KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. <C,
14. :3: SMT.NAZEEMA BEGUM W/O. NAZEERHUSEN SULEKAL AGE: 40 YEARS, RIO. KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. SRI .HAZARATHUSEN 5/0. NAZEERHUSEN SULEKAL AGE: 15 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REP. BY HIS GUARDIAN - MOTHER SMT.NAZEEMA BEGUM TANVEER BEGUM D/O. NAZEER HUSEN SULEKAL AGE: 17 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REP. BY HER GUARDIAN - MOTHER NAZEEMA BEGUM SRI.RAHEEMSAB 5/0. NANASAB SULEKAL AGE: 50 YEARS, RiO. KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI DIST: KOPPAL. SMT.HUSENBI W/O. HASANSAB SULEKAL AGE: 65 YEARS, RIO. KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. SRI.HONNURSAB Sb. HASANSAB SULEKAL AGE: 31 YEARS, RIO. KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. SMT.HONNURABI @ HUSANBEE W/0. KASIMSAB KALLI AGE: 35 YEARS, RIO. KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. SRI.MAINUPASHA @ HUSSAIN PEERA 6’ :4: 5/0. HASANSAB SULEKAL AGE: 19 YEARS, RIO. KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, 01ST: KOPPAL. SRLCHANDHUSENSAB 5/0. HUSENSAB SULEKAL AGE: 60 YEARS, R/O. KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. SMT.HUSENBI W/O. HIREKASHIMSAB SULEKAL AGE: 85 YEARS, RIO. KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. SRLKASHIMSAB Sb. HIREKASHIMSAB SULEKAL AGE: 55 YEARS, RiO. KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. SMT.HONNURBI W/O. RAJESAB AGARBATTI AGE: 45 YEARS, RiO. KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, 01ST: KOPPAL. SMT.KASHIMBI W/O. HUSENSAB LADDINAVAR AGE: 46 YEARS, RIO. SOMASAGAR, TQ: GANGAVATHI, 01ST: KOPPAL SMT.RASLJLBI W/O. DAVALSAB LADDINAVAR AGE: 46 YEARS, RIO. SOMASAGAR, TQ: GANGAVATHI, 01ST: KOPPAL. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DIVISION, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL. IS.
21. ‘CT THE TAHASILDAR TQ: GANGAVATHI DIST. KOPPAL RESPONDENTS (3 SF Lk.BADHYAPAK AGA FOR RESPONDENTS 21 ADD 2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/bA OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE DATED 09/11/2011 PASSED BY LEARNED S NGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PET TION NO.61150/2011, BY ALLOWING ThE WRIT PETITION. IN AtLQ&469LQfl BETWEEN SMT HAZARATH Bi (WRONGLY SHOWN AS ZAIRABI) W/O, LATE SHAW HUSAINSAB SULEKAL AGE 65 YEARS 0CC HOUSEHOLD WORK SRLHONNUR HUSSAIN S/O, LATE SHAIK HUSSAINSAB SU EKA AGE, 46 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTUDE, SRI MAKTUMSAB S/0, LATE SHAIKH HUSSAINSAB SULEKAL AGE. 43 YEARS 0CC: AGRICULTURE, St-I,KHAJA HUSSAIN S/0 ATE SHAIKH HUSSAINSAB SULEKAL PGE: 33YEARS,OCC 4GFI ULTURE 4LL ARt R/O SUIEK?L ONI, KANAKAGIRI Q. GANG! VATHI, DIS . KOPFAL. (BY SI r L LALXH!N, AVOCA.L) AOL) APPE ANI’ I I MOHAMMEDSAB 510, KAS1MSAB SULEKAL AGE: 58 YEARS 0 KINA 01 1 LIST. KOPPAL. : A GAVAT 1 2 RINABS B’O A MS B U K/ AGE. 42 YEARS R/O. KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, ST’ K PPAL
3. SRI1HONNURSAB 5/0. KASIMSAB SULEKAL E 48YE4R5 RIO. HERUR, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. 4, SRI1SAHAMEEDSAB SIO. KASI ISAB SULLKA_ AGE: 36 YEARS1 RiO KANAKGIR T ‘ ANGAVAT 1, D ST. KOPP L. 5 CR1 F USCNSAB 5/0 K SF MS4B CUL K AGE. 33 E/ 55, RIO1 KANAKAGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, 051 KOPP F. 6 SR11SHA1KHUSEN SAB Sb. NAN ASAB SULEKAL AGE’ 68 YEARS RO. A AK Gil, Q1GA GIVA 11, DIST: KOPPAL. Ill ‘flflft S IT. Al B 4 EL M A “7rr vv’U. MLCC AGE’ i YEARS F 0. A V ;i DIST. KOPPAL. ‘‘‘ SuLis L , Q,GA Gb A . \ZRAI S 5/0 NAZEEPHUSEN SiJLEKAL 4GB MINOR THROUGM GUAP VAT B —I- S \ El BE AN VEER BEGLIM D.t. NAZEER HUSEN SU’flAt AE: • 7VEI S ‘“ICE UN I IA * N. TEE) 4 BECU!’1 I G SRI.RAI-sEEMSAB S/O YE • V4NAIs DTST: KOPPAL. 3 Ii iNASAB CULEKAL TQ AN WI II sMr.H SENB W S, •E R .) K!NAKIGIR... TQ GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPAL H’ ANS B S El’ NURCAB 0 H • YER., f PlO. KANAKAGIRI TQ. CANGAV4ThI 01ST: KOPPAL A S IL N B ilt’ F1B F’L Wo.r AGE 33VEAS, ?/) KA&AKAr1P! ,A Ii ‘ ‘i ‘C A I- ,fr1ii3i.NLF4SI,? ‘ ‘tJSS4_1 øër;’,t SIC. 4rS4NS ‘B C ;LEVAI I E:. :frr 1.,i :qjj4k I;. :1’: . -. :- k’i.F ej — - F r • 1- (4 .. r P
8. ; EU a’,) 4’4 I-J’. AGE. 83 VEARt,, R/O VANAKACIRT, Q. GAN..,AJA1HI. DISP KOPPAL pr.,.fl,e p cji:v 1 R <IS I NIB’, . I 1(t)-h 1’ E LI IL AGE. 53 VEAPS, /0 ANA A RI rQ: GRNGAVA1HT, DIST. KOPPAL. ‘.8 19
20. -‘ SMT HJNNUPBI WiG PAjESAB AGARBnT.1 AGE: 43 YFARS Ff0 VNAKAGIR. TQ: G?NGAVATHI, DIST i<OPPAL. SMT KASHIMBI W/0 HUSENSAB LADDINAVAR AG& 51 EAR R/O SOMASAGAR. TQ GANGAVATh’ DTST ‘OPPAL SMT RASULBI WI” DA’A1SAB ftDflNAVAR ;t 4. E R Rb) cor1A5ASAR. TC N A ‘ h C. & : t F L - IE ASISLoNTrY1I1 S0NER ICJPPA_ DIV.SIJN ‘r,r%rcT rflDbAL ThE TA’-lbSI_C,AFr .6 ‘. A s t;;S Wi”PAL — ‘ • .: L p.. 1 ‘ — ‘ ‘S —t g .. ,a4 . r — .41.t?T1’31 . ‘C. ,4,’:. P1 . F + 1’. •.t1r’ -‘f •II ,,r I .( p ‘‘ • • ‘‘ r • I :• — f- :‘ !‘r a r :9:
09.11.2011 DISMISSING THE WRIT PtIITION PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.61750/2011 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PEUiION NO.61750/2011 AND DISMISSING THE WRIT Pt iii ION NO.62804/2011 ON 09.11.2011 BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, K.L.MANJUNATH, 3., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Overruling the objections of the office, we have heard the appeals on the question of admission.
2. The appellants herein are challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 09.11.2011 passed In Writ Petition Nos.61750/2011 c/w W.P.No.62804/2011 by the learned Single Judge.
3. The leading hereunder: - (a) The Tahsildar, Gangavathi Taluk by its order dated 14.12.1987 re-granted certaIn lands situated at Kanakagiri Village in favour of the father of the petitioner in W.P.No.61750/2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the p II) d Do aV t 3 g’ at K in C. £ sc 0 3, .s amc. d:sciissed o’ .7 04.2003. Chai’r’rgiig the same. rha ::rir peVt’on was frcd before ths Court :n W.P.Nc.21224fl003, [ ‘eti ‘ic me ffg iti ‘li t 1 t tioi bEt e ‘e c Cobrt. Basea on the same, a rev’evi petitioi was filed ‘ri C:vu Misc.No.06/2003, hhich petibon came to be ai!nwed Dist- n he gro that i bredec Ia e t. 0 s :erta n oartitj to tha oroceeding... wee dcad and )rcicr .15 ‘ na1P.tV. Tr,erefr. the rpletb rt”fl ?vOS llej ea a’ ci . e r1atttr tiS n nlec Ci C hsi di a ‘r 4; •‘a U- r’’ rr’4j, ,ts,ed ty 3• .c-nct 1 dg-. ;r. r• P.%t:t1 .,...rh F; rr •s F “ tx, ‘. I ) J tbt’ writ petirors. Ths crder s caiid ifl ouest’on ir t5 ta, 4 H viny heard th itarwd oun I r’ teU ts, do ots 3flj ‘icr nt aca oea Vie are alsc ot tte view that the learned Single Judge has not ittdr eo’ tcc w jrt The oa’-t’es do not dispute that some of tne partes w e Ag C r er øa.2sed In s..ch ar eve, rhe orders passed agains such lead pe-sos ;s a nuiI!’y ard if tie same riistakt has rrt d ‘st e l! oeti F1.A.tJo 11 ‘2:100, .t j ecnfea by the D;crrict uq’ C F it. ‘ta. Sail era .1 ‘- ‘r a,dnr s u,nfirn1’1 oy t’ie ‘-a”r; % jl is’ -rio ir’ )t•II tr. ‘ - 2 if r. r. t a . ‘ •1 rr tLl’L1 “1 ‘1’ p’ . 2 ) t• fl.t1 . . 4 iebaiatfieOaDqouanss0juoqzaipeIfl!MqAe6Ue9 ‘s3pawuoiaewaipappappliesaAnewasaidai 9 ‘IIOz/Tst9’°N’rMJOiSS!WS!PJOMaIAU Z9SSWSosieSIIIOU69fr9’°NVM -‘Ps ascitui