NUSRATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 in RP No.243/2021. The said proceedings pertains to 19 guntas in Sy.No.92/2 and 17 guntas in Sy.No.106/1 of Maragondanahalli Village and in the course of arguments the advocate for the petitioners submits that they are giving up the challenge insofar as it relates to the lands in Sy.No.92/2 is concerned with liberty to pursue the available remedies before Civil Court.

(2.) With regard to the lands in Sy.No.106/1, in the course of arguments it is submitted that 34 guntas was re- granted in favour of one Syed Khasim and in a family partition 17 guntas of land went to one Syed Gafoor who was the brother of Syed Khasim and the petitioners are agitating only in respect of the remaining 17 guntas of land and for that reason, pray for quashing the impugned order to that extent. However, it is noticed from the impugned order, it pertains to 17 guntas of land which went to the share of Syed Gafoor. The order does not state anything about the other 17 guntas of land said to have been allotted or retained by Syed Khasim as contended by the petitioners.

(3.) Under the said circumstances, as the impugned order pertains to 17 guntas of land which went to the share of Syed Gafoor in Sy.No.106/1 & 19 guntas in Sy.No.92/2, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order.