IN THE HI H X’URT 3: N4 \T aAtrCORE Dated hî the 2Et’ day of kiay 1098 t2 Cn ,t 6£. ijt k THE HDHEL NH, rJSrlr 2,7, RAEDRN Irit Pntitnn No, 2632 of 1992 1, Sassvana Sala;a CReqd) Sorneswara Extenslon Turnkurc by its Drasj5nt 3r 3, Sharanaiai; 2, 3.0. Sasappa, son of late Channabasavaradhya, Retired Junior FnJ ne r, 9th Dross, thid 4sn, S.I,T,Extensio Tumkur; Sri Hanurnant a sonofl e Maruthi / i.t.T. Turnkur 0 ri h o. e n o,37, Purakur ; Sri H,K, , y s/o late N No.6, 9th S,S,Pura’n, T 6, Sr 3, Malliah, son of late Sanga do,9, VIII Onss, S,S, °uran, Trikur-2; Sfl. ,nou ?a’, son of late Haravana sa>’, ;okula 0 odd, third roc, ‘ttfl1flfl, trflC]) a 8. r • iah, o t I sh ros,V1 yn • a ttea 0 1 • 9 • S n flqa2’l Retir-dP tMst tn. • •.T. x tnnktr• .9. idda a, no riSidd • 6, . •“i at, tie r. a ‘ fl n.I.h . . 3 S ,.ddai ewe t 7 ‘r, 3.P ,i R •1’ t 3.7. a i. a, n f •oa It a JOha i r — a m,cir a (qa a, Ie t r r I I p WI a C’ a on s, Pa t of 2 P’ae ..om • o r a - • S • •“ .n..pa, •i ri. Jr pat es, *111° at a Ut7 • Pc ‘. LC Bala r 4 ,r B. •4 tfl• t ‘I a ft S a a The first petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnaaka Societies Registration Act. Petitioners 3 to IS are its members The first petitioner claims that it has bsen established for soting ed literatu e rts etc pefl s to I’ t ilotrr t 0 dent i SO’ 2 a NoJOS shwara S r Tumkur, that it could ma e use of it for elebrating Basava Jayanthi and conducting sports and cultural activlties According to petitioners, the fourth respondent had also recommended grant of the site in favour of the first pettinner, in the eanwhile, cc i land belo g to the th r e ondent ed by respo oai soi sed esp l9 a native ng kath homes v ension, Goku gar, measurin X 45’X SO S t and that resourion ua aporovea by the Government un&r Sect’or 72 it the tarnatbkM cunicipaiite flct that this frt :i W 0N l68l’l982 had elso cd ftc a nn F •Th t Ii r alternative site in lieu of the land acquired from thet[r esoorer c r ny h ist respondent executed a registered deed dated 8-10-1990 conveying the said site bearing katha No 03, So eshwa a x en io S kularag , measuring X 45’ xaoJ. In pursuance of such 2 o e we r fv r f h t r cc idei e katha was also transferred to the name of the third espondert by rd r daed 511 1 90 1 nrexu e 0) as-ed by th seond respondent Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition be r to to h s r n e u h respondent rejected the revision petition by his rdr aed 212 n x € ] F iig aggrieved, petitioner has fileo tni ettion for quashing the order dated 81l-i990 [Annexure-0] by h h ate ir rgad to he oid pot €es transferred to the name if the third respondent and o q’s r t ad 192 n xc) passed by the fourth respondent rJectrng the cv don pe ition 2. The first peti ncr contends that it had made an dpplication for grant of the said plot of land and even the Divisional Commissioner had made a recommendation for allotment of the said plot and without considering their request, the said plot has been given to the third respondent. It is also contended that the Government had approved the grant of a site to third respondent in Gokul Extension and not Someshwara Extension and, therefore, the said plot co 1 not have been given to the third respondent 3. Accord’ itioner it an appl id plot o “i inth end U’ t I aid toth £ lard 1’ from t bark as 9, In fact, •o directed an alternative p b given to I’e third respondent. v nmeit had also given its appr;val tor ran of the said land. further, it nat been cU’ +ind that Domeshwara Extension ‘s a part. ,f Gokuianagar and they ate not tg÷. differnt aeas l tj’i rjr’unstarrec, j —7 - cannot be•• saId I. hat the transfer of the a• Id plot by the Municipality In favour of the third respondent Is irregular or Illegal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances the grant i.n favour of the thIrd res:pondent. cannot be objected to by the petitIoner. it. is always open to the petitioner to pursue Its application for grant of a suitable site before the first respondent. The petItioners have not. made out sAy ground: for quashing the transfer of kathe in favour o.f the third respondent or the rejection of the revision petition by the fourth respondent. When the land has been conveyed to the third respondent by the Mu:niclpelit.y, the. Municipality is bound to transfer the katha in regard to the land in favour of the third respondent. 4, Petition Is, therefore, rejected reserving liberty to the petitioners to pursue tha application for allotment of a suitable site in: at•ccrdance with law. saP, jt”tX Ont’ I-