.7 V 1’ -1- °ih THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4th BEFORE DAY OF JUNE 1998 THE HON ‘BLE HR .JUSTICE P .VISHWANATHA SHETTY Writ Petition No.5138/1994 C.Siddaiah Sb Chikkanna, & aged 52 y are, Agri L’lturist, R/at III Cross, Gandhi Bazaar, Shimcga City. .. Petitioner (By ri B Rudregowda, Advocate) vs. 1. The Ant. Commissioner, Shimoga Sub -Diviqion, C himoga. 2. The Tahsildar, Shimoga Taluk, Shimoga - 3. Doddaiah S/o Venkataiah Doddavile village, Shimoga Taluk... Respondents (By Sri. 3S Kotain AddI Govt. Advocite for Respondents 1 and 2; Sri S.Nagaraj, Advocate for Respondent—3) Writ P tition fii i under 227 of the Con’titutaon affidavit praying for the order dated 20-1-1993 vide At Is 26 nd )f India with an quashing of the Annexure—E, etc. Thr pctition cominj on for hearing before Court this day, the Court made Ut following: -2 - ORDER The petitioner, in this petition clairr to be. th owner of land measuring 1 nrc. 27 guntas of Honnavile village in Suivey No.66 (old) 9’ (new), Block No.4, having pur hased the same by means vf registered sale deed dated 3rd of October 1985 from one Wadeyar Goundar 2 In this petition tic, ha’ called in question the con ec,tness of the order dated 20th of January 199a, a copy of which has been produced as Annaxurc.-E, pabsed by the first respondent resuming the land in question to the Gov rnme.nt on the ground that the. sele of the said land was made in tavou of the petitioner b>’ the aforesaid Wadeyar G under in contravention of the tern of the grant. 3 ii ugh Sri B.Rudregowda, lcarn€i Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Nagaraj, learned C. un’sl apçearing for the. third respondent. advanced arguments for a considerable length of time in support of their respective clea, howevei, in the light -3 - of thb ‘: u jnn that h d tjkt pl e in th course of the hearing. fairly submitted that the order Anncuie D gas ed by the se ond respondent and also order dated 20th of January 1993 Annexure-E passed by the first respondent may be set aside and t e matter may be remitted to the second iespondent for fresh disposal. 4 Accordingly, the order Annexure-D passed by the ,econd rcapondsnt and also the order Annexure-E passed by the tirst respondent are hcnby quashed and thc. matter ia rc.mitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration. 5. The petitioner and the tnird respondent are Sirectc.d to pear before th’ second respondent for fresh conaideratton of the mttcr on 8th of July 1998 It i. midc. cleat that the petitioner and the third respondent are not entitled for any frech noti.o from the t.c r spot & nt 6. The seccnd respondent is directed to pass fresh order after leaving the petitioer and the third respondent and in accordane with law, withir thiec in nth frcm th f uly 1998. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of in terms tated above. Rule issued is made absolute. 9. Sri REKotian, learnd Additional Goiernment Advocate, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today. fc7 Sd/ JUDGE %ri NB.