Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: karnataka Year: 2005 Page 2 of about 95 results (0.008 seconds)

Nov 09 2005 (HC)

M. Narayanappa Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-09-2005

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. these two writ petitions, though are by two different persons, both of whom are claiming as legal heirs of persons in whose favour agricultural lands had been granted - an extent of 2 acres each - way back in the year 1947 and as persons belonging to depressed class [adi karnataka] and directed against different orders passed by the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner - statutory functionaries under the provisions of the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 (for short, 'the act'), first as original authority and second as the appellate authority - after having heard the matter at length, i am disposing of the petitions by this common order, as the legal issues that are canvassed on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents are common, though on facts, some more issues are sought to be raised insofar as the respondents 3 to 5 in w.p. no. 8141 of 2003 are concerned.2. both petitions owe their origin to the proceedings under the act and the assistant commissioner having initiated the proceedings suo motu in terms of section 5 of the act for invalidating the transfers that had been effected either by the grantee or their legal heirs, as also the subsequent series of transactions that had taken place, till the proceedings were initiated and by issue of notice to persons who were presently in occupation of the subject lands.3. insofar as w.p. no. 8141 of 2003 is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2005 (HC)

Sripad Ekanath Gaonkar Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Kumta Division

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-21-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR1895

orderk. ramanna, j.1. this writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.7.1996 passed by the respondent assistant commissioner in case the brief facts leading to this case are that the land bearing survey no. 98/a measuring 1 acre 17 guntas 8 annas of hanehalli village, kumta taluk was granted by land tribunal to one devu honnappa gowda and the occupancy rights was issued to him on 25.5.1981 as per annexure-a. the petitioner herein was looking after devu honnappa gowda therefore he made a registered will bequeathing some portion, i.e., 82 ft x 66 ft., of the said survey number in favour of the petitioner under a registered will dated 9.4.1985. thereafter, pursuant to the said will the petitioner's name was incorporated in the record of rights. but respondent asst. commissioner issued notice to the petitioner as well as devu honnappa gowda under section 61 of the karnataka land reforms act stating that the devu honnappa gowda has violated section 61 of the act by transferring a portion of the land in favour of the petitioner. to this the petitioner has given reply. thereafter by order dated 25.7.1996 the respondent herein has passed order for vesting of the land granted to devu honnappa gowda. therefore the petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition.3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned high court govt. pleader for the respondent.4. it is contended by the learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2005 (HC)

The Bangalore District and Bangalore Rural District Central Co-op. Ban ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-03-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR377; 2005(2)KarLJ81

orderk. bhakthavatsala, j.1. in this batch of writ petitions the petitioner/co-operative bank seeks direction to respondent no. 4 to effect entries as to charge in the revenue records in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule as per sections 127 to 129 of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964.2. the respondent nos. 1 to 4 are represented by sri. shashidhar karamadi, learned government pleader, the respondent no. 5 is represented by sri k. suman.3. with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, heard arguments for final disposal.4. the brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the batch of writ petitions may be stated as under;-the petitioner/co-operative bank raised a dispute in no. jrb.dis/912/93-94 against the 5th respondent viz, vyalikaval house building co-operative society (in short, 'the society')as the society did not repay loan of rs. 15.50 crores, before the joint registrar of co-operative societies, bangalore division, and also obtained orders dated 27.10.1994, 23.11,1999, 23.11.2002 and 5.2.2003 as per annexures-a, a1, a2 and a3, respectively, for attachment of the immovable properties of the society. the petitioner/bank has given public notice in deccan herald daily newspaper dated 26.2.2004 bringing to the notice of the general public and the third parties regarding lien/charge of the bank over the lands in question and cautioning the general public not to enter into any negotiation with reference to the schedule properties. further, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2005 (HC)

Sri Chandrasen Bapusaheb Jadhav and anr. Vs. Sri Gangappa Yallappa Hol ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-09-2005

Reported in : ILR2006KAR1940

huluvadi g. ramesh, j.1. this appeal is by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned principal civil judge (senior division) belgaum, in r.a. no. 40/1991 in allowing the appeal and setting the judgment and decree of the trial court in o.s. no. 877 1986.2. plaintiffs filed a suit before the i additional civil judge (junior division) belgaum in o.s. no. 87/1986 for possession of the suit property. according to the plaintiffs, suit property in 90/1b situated at balekundri khurd village measures 4 acres 2 guntas and is assessed at rs. 9.72ps. the land is a watan land granted for officiating as patil of the village officer under the karnataka village offices abolition act, 1961 and bombay hereditary offices act, 1894. plaintiffs state that 90/1 was divided into 90/1a and 90/1b. originally the land was held by balavantrao parashuram jadhav, bapusaheb parashuram jadhav and yeshwantrao parashuram jadhav. since the land was resumed by the government of mysore, it was re-granted to balavantro jadhav in the year 1966 by the assistant commissioner belgaum, and 2074 was rectified in pursuance of the regrant order. subsequent to this regrant order, partition took place and the suit land was allotted to the share of bapusaheb parashuram jadhav who died in the year 1976 and thus plaintiffs became the owners of the suit land prior to the introduction of the karnataka village offices abolition act, 1961. the suit land was alienated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 2005 (HC)

G.K. Mallikarjunappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-18-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)KarLJ205

orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. this writ petition before this court by the purchaser of a granted land is the second round of litigation. the subject-matter land, a extent of 3 acres 31 guntas in sy. no. 51 of ganadakatte village, channagiri taluk in davangere district, is a piece of agricultural land which had been granted in favour of one kariyappa-father of the third respondent -a person belonging to adi karnataka community [scheduled caste] in terms of grant/saguvall chit dated 6-2-1957. it is this land that the grantee had sold in favour of one kariyappa -father of the writ petitioner. the question is as to whether the said sale transaction is hit by the provisions of the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 (for short, 'the act').2. the son of the grantee bhimappa third respondent herein - had filed an application before the assistant commissioner, praying for invalidation of the sale and for restoration of the land in his favour on the premise that the sale was in violation of the terms of the grant.3. the application was registered and notice was issued to the petitioner, who was in possession of the land. the proceedings culminated in allowing the application in terms of the order dated 29-4-1992 and the sale was held void, as it was in violation of the condition of the grant that the land should not be alienated for a period of fifteen years and therefore directed resumption of the land in favour of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2005 (HC)

Shivaling and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-04-2005

orderk. ramanna, j.1. this writ petition is filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10/5/1977 passed by the land tribunal, hukeri in case no.tnc/ 3487 and in no.tnc/ 2785 dated 10/5/1977 as per annexure-a and b' in favour of one bhima dungappa sukanahalli and nagappa satyappa, granting occupancy rights in their favour in respect of land sy. no. 127/9 a measuring 1 acre 15 guntas and land bearing no.l27/9b measuring 2 acres respectively. both the lands are in ankale of hukeri taluk.2. the main grounds urged by the petitioner no. 1 of petitioner no. 2 are that, they have filed form no. 1 for grant of occupancy rights in their favour on 26/6/1983 as per annexure-c in respect of the aforesaid lands as tenants when inam abolition act 1977 was in force. but the respondents-4 to 7 filed form no. 7 in the year 1974 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land of shree swami jagadguru shankaracharya math as tenants. but the tribunal without verifying the records granted occupancy rights in favour of bhima dungappa sukanahalli and nagappa satyappa as per annexure-a and b. since the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the said lands, they have invested huge amounts to dig the bore well and have made it fit for cultivation. therefore, the petitioners could not be parties before the tribunal along with other applications filed by respondents-4 to 7. therefore, the tribunal ought to have clubbed the applications form no. 7 filed by other .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 2005 (HC)

P. Keshava Murthy Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secret ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-17-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR4772; 2006(3)KarLJ271

orderk.l. manjunath, j.1. i have heard the counsel for the review petitioner and govt. advocate for respondent-1 and counsel for respondents-2 to 4.2. the petitioner herein had filed writ petition in no. 41864/2002 challenging the endorsement refusing to pay the compensation to the petitioner in respect of acquisition of 4 acres of land situated in sy. no. 28 of doddasanne village of devanahali taluk. the endorsement further reads that compensation would be paid to the petitioner provided he gets a declaratory relief from the competent civil court. challenging the said endorsement, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court contending that one rudramuni was the owner of 4 acres of land in sy. no. 28 of doddasanne village of devanahalli taluk and he had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 15.9.84. since the date of purchase, he was in lawful possession of the same. according to him. his vendor rudramuni had been granted this land under a grant certificate. it was the case of the petitioner that all the revenue records were standing in the name of the vendor prior to purchase of the property and subsequently mutation entries and other revenue entries were transferred to the petitioner. he has also produced the saguvali chit issued in favour of his vendor by the revenue authorities as per annexure-e to the writ petition. a notification under section 28(1) of the karnataka industrial area development act, 1966 was issued on 8.6.96 proposing to acquire the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 2005 (HC)

Mungappa and anr. Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-22-2005

Reported in : ILR2005KAR4174; 2006(4)KarLJ114

ordershylendra kumar, j.1. these two writ petitions are by brothers, who had claimed as the legal heirs of one nagamma, a person belonging to scheduled caste community and in whose favour an extent of 1 acre of land in 155 of hoodi village k.r. puram hobli, bangalore had been granted in terms of the sanction order dated 25-6-1952, issued by the revenue commissioner in no. d.dis.c1.dr.177/51-52. the sanction order was one sanctioning the grant of land to an extent of 9 acres 39 guntas in the said survey number to nine persons mentioned in the order, who belong to adi-karnataka community, i.e, an extent of 1 acre in favour of each person, in accordance with the rules governing the grant of land to persons belonging to depressed class.2. this sanction order was followed by an individual grant order dated 30-3-1954 in favour of the said nagamma, granting her one acre of land subject to the condition that the land should not be alienated permanently, as the grant was free of cost, and further a saguvali chit was issued on 23-10-1954, where under also, the condition that the land cannot be alienated by the granted permanently had been mentioned.3. it is such land that had been sold by the daughter of the original grantee smt. byramma in terms of the sale deed dated 16-4-1968 in favour of one ramanujalu reddy-father of the third respondent. it is in respect of this transaction, the petitioner in wp no. 31938 of 2004 had filed an application to the assistant commissioner under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 2005 (HC)

Ravikirthi Shetty and ors. Vs. Jagathpala Shetty (Deceased) by L.Rs

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-13-2005

Reported in : AIR2005Kant194; 2005(2)KarLJ32

b.s. patil, j.1. in the suit for partition brought by jagathpala shetty (plaintiff) against his brother ravikirthi shetty (defendant 1) and his two sisters vijayamma and nagarathnamma (defendants 2 and 3 respectively), the court below by the judgment and decree dated 22-10-1993 decreed the suit. being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this regular first appeal.2. for the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranks obtained in the court below. few facts, which are essential for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be set out as under:3. the plaintiff-jagathpala shetty and defendant 1-ravikirthi shetty are the sons of late raju shetty. defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of late raju shetty. the relationship between the parties is not disputed. the case of the plaintiff being that b schedule properties to the memorandum of plaint were acquired by the late father of the plaintiff and the defendants under a registered partition deed of the year 1927 and that upon the death of raju shetty who died inter-state on 15-2-1980 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as the sole surviving heirs, himself and the defendants succeeded to the estate of the deceased. the plaintiff has further contended that defendant 1 who was his elder brother and was an influential man both in the family and in the locality managed to bring about a document purporting to be a bequest by his father of the property in favour of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2005 (HC)

Venkappa Hunashikatti and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-04-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)KarLJ201

orderr. gururajan, j.1. writ petition no. 31479 of 2004 is filed by venkappa hunasikatti challenging the order of the land tribunal dated 15-6-2004 at annexure-c in the case on hand. writ petition nos. 33646 to 33648 of 2004 are filed by suresh ambiger and two others challenging this very order. both the petitions are taken up together for disposal.2. facts in w.p. no. 31479 of 2004: petitioner's father somappa hunasikatti filed form 7 before the land tribunal, bilagi in respect of the lands bearing sy. nos. 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105 of kolur village in bilagi taluk, bagalkot district. the tribunal by its order dated 6-9-1975 allowed the application and granted occupancy rights in favour of somappa. necessary entries have been carried out in the revenue register in respect of the lands. as per conditions of grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands, lands could not be sold to any one within a period of 15 years from the date of conferment of occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. it is stated that after the period of non-alienation i.e., after a lapse of 23 years from the date of grant, the lands have been sold in favour of three persons and they are in possession as on today. name of the petitioner's father was entered in respect of the said lands. the third respondent claims to be the son of govindappa hunasikatti who is the brother of the petitioner's father. in 1995 he applied to the village accountant seeking to modify the mutation entry and to enter his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //