o 1) C,z 4z IN TIlE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 2 DATED flUB filE 2CYE DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 o THE HOWBLE MR. JtJ STIC E L NARAYANA SWAMY WJjIDQLNQp9&fIfIaU2r$LRi BETWEEN U,,o 1. SRI NANJUNDAIAH 5/0 LATE CHIKKABASAPPA 8 AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS x 2. SRi. GOWIIAMMA W/ 0 LATE CHIKKABASAPPA AGEDABOUT60YERS 3 SRi MJYEASWAMMAL4H — ‘r P’’ ‘- * HI J HiiHIAtnbAARn t AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS I,, 4. SR’ BASAVEAJU C, z;n iA,. B A’3ELABOUT33YEABS ALL ARE RESIDING AT LIIIGADEE RAHITDLAHA LI KZHILARIAIIOE I 5 DELrYEAHALI ALAR BANOALOPE HI rEAL DISTIllS I BANGALORE CITY PETITIONERS C’ 8 UT :OU PROTHISIT T HE SEAR AD’S I. THE STATE OF EARNATAKA EFEISESEL $EE’ c:r Ji 2 r’ Cc’”ct*c 4 J vci( cLc,’tbe c’ t&-L t/’VEA’ 1 c — pH VIDHAIUi• S000HA BANOALORE 3f4) 031 i 4 ffl TRPUW CaM USSIONER BANOALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANSGAUCRE 3. SRI LINGADEVARA MUTT (HLJNASAMARANAHALLI MUTh REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER FNAS4M4RANAHPLU LIE.VANAHAt 4!...LI TALUK BANG:ALORE Rur. DISTRICT 4 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 U PAStEl) BY HE) LEES ]IQ.49/9 03 AN]) C, 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 z 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 g j.1ng.:..varI. Mutt di f haffi taluk. After abollticn 0t UU U Ac 101 a fulle C:pC.n t’ F f C t P ver is exen f Ian Fr c’ -flrtation of he or ever doe ‘aty ighte a 4 griin’ed it the same o beret) Co’ir to Derit Depu 111 corrnnu’d to he ii orrup ton 1 or ithaca they made at tflis at ‘ups he polio red ho ott bvour of the petitioners Being etc lepr reed nih lie g a a allowed abe matter rca eecanhd to Ito Cornndssioner for ficsh dispcsin. Since the at a or 0 a CU a: itt tr of the 283ro3 r F dii yba the RF d his i 9 At) Cli 1155 ‘The hi U r ne’ 13 as per tro at) p ide cci Pt Ic F trot S It pOt tOrs :5 t lao t 11 ct 01 r 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 ppt o B, SO t 0) Contra the learn al a s though, th e was a snail I e on the part the 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 C He cM petit odue ttials Lienuty issun tr to a a tic 3 The learned curacl t 01 ‘hr 9ow’rnrnent bmmttd that tue Dry: b Sb it arts passe the re yin in lien it rpm’ net law Nh be9n eet 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 could law provided II. 11 opportunity to the litioners under & A) (Religious and table) loam Aix I could hew nenq neofti alt spec ewbee hcffick a d rection r enquiry ‘a a1 to parties ha I r evidence and examrnmg themselvs C on’ scioner an’ is toe comoetent and j jitj the o nartes bout the n’ 4 sjo is is or evainale tar their benert in thtee tageb ,ri° snoi e than I ‘n I page the heputy on’anus to- s ‘as cO tote on’ 1 to the o eU suive numbers and caoee whth were rer 1 anaed by the Court Pursuant to the notice parts appeared% They e t w a a ea 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 nit ugh sa a n equ nder pro ons sw pe ners w I their written argument along with available reconis Onprcu otion fther orda eflep jCon issione shout ng thrt th Lort nat See- 0 of the Mvsore (Religious and Charitable) Inam Abolition Act t Rewnue Officer could taw her dr’ected to cc ne 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 well egieiahcr, which a erscted. b” the irgsrure in U nipi e a soc pis Ira 055 er one n lad V. th uth cc S assgnai o render ; nae nit icr the trov hess of lea no as t ak 11 s a ci justice to the parties. The parnes who approach the out uner psns 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 sin fla Under these circumstances it is the fundamental duty a ira ft retnu flit a ki sp Commissioner to give fullest opportunity in aocordance a ten sing ti e no sirnand a in parties. Hence, I find that in the interest of justice and equi 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 si a dthe pi o am nm sna ac h ‘r let R it is further directed that the Depu Commissioner shall pnivide fuiketoppprtuni and also sip itt tic A cii es dSa of the Mysore (Religious a sl Charitable) mare Ahelitition Act 1955 and pass appropriate order at the arlies iut a bay six a tithe in dat eceipt copy I this or. pan are ctea apar hefore the tputy Coreraissioner without waith for an) notice from tie office on 30A 1otmoer A)9 take nba ins isinliereacte Writ thion is allowed acccrding’v Sd! JUDGE 8N