High Court Karnataka High Court

Nasamma Deceased Rep By Her Lrs vs The Deputy Commissioner Kolar … on 29 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Nasamma Deceased Rep By Her Lrs vs The Deputy Commissioner Kolar … on 29 November, 2010
Author: N.Kumar And Nagaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARI\§A'I'A}'{A AT 

DATED THIS THE 29") DAY OF NOVEMBER'; :-26:10'   ~

PRESENT_,m_

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE     

ANbk
THEHONMENm"RBfl¢EM%¢M%Q&%J
W.A No'.2.éjc, 1_ /;é,0c;_g  _

BEUNEEN _ A-ee='v. ' V
1. snn;Nasahfifia} ,eA€.fi e=e**»m.

Since riec:e_aVs'edl'__ " " " V '

represeljied by '
{a} S1;i.,Yef1'avMufiiyéip.pAét;e._: ' '

S/0'.Sri' Muniya-p'pa,'~.,,___  
Aged about 4'? yef--_11*s,.._

 [b}  Narayeiriaswarny,

' - S / 3s§.:Sri .Mu11iyaij5pa,
., ., 2 AgecE.abQ'Lst_._ 45 years.

R/0..Kadadibb§.1'r village.

V . Kasaba }'iQbi.i.§
~ ..   VChikkaba1]:.a.pL1ra Taluk.
" V " .eC'niel:.};-:3ballapura District. .. Appellants

   'Sn': C Nagesh. Adv.)



(«.2

AND:

1. The Deputy Commissioner.

Kolar District, (now
Chikkaballaptlra District}.
Chikkabaliapura.

2. The Assistant. CO1"I1ITliSSiOf1€l',
Chikkaballapura Sub--Divisioh,
Chikkaballapura,   ~
Chik.kaba.l}apura District. V

3. Sri C Chalapathi,
S/o.Go\/indappa. 
Major, r/ofiathariguppe,
Kasaba Hobli,  
Chikkabailapura Taiak,  _ _
Chikkabaliapura oisu-:e,t..-.,  ;

4. Smt.Ratr1amma,   --  '   . ,
W/o.Sri CIVi«.Narasimha--iah;'«.   
Major, r,/o..Ka:thariguppe, .3 T .

Kasaba Hofbli,'" 

Chdikka_haiviap_ui9a'M'i'a,iii~li;, _ _
Chi,k}{aba]lapi;i1ta Dis Lr__ie"t 

5. Sn1t.S'h.ar1thafnm.a,," 
W! o.Sri Venkiatactialapathi,
.. Aged about "80 years,
V . '-1-/(i-Qfiatihariguppe,
. ' = .. _I&'aSaba,PI'obli.
V' V , VCAhik.1§avba1l3,pura Taluk,
H -.ChikE{abaL1apu1'a District. .. Respondents

V . (By sh Vi”shwanat,h, AGA for R1 and R2)

is WA is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
“High “Court. Act, praying to set: aside the order dated
_ -_1’i._.6′.’2009 and set aside the order dated 13.5.2002 passed
“by the 21′”? respondent in case No.P’FCL [Ch.i.)5/2000~0i as

per A1mexure»H and declare that the order dated 17.12.2004

DJ

passed by the 19′ respondent. in Case No.R.A.SC&ST 8-‘/2002-
03 is Valid and binding on the respondents.

This WA coming on for orders this .

delivei’ed the following:

JUDsMI«:I§;1″”‘ . A

The appellant. has prefer1’ed’.this_lAappeal.

order passed by the learned Judge, whovhasuqualslieditV

the order passed by the DepLx1Ly«uVCponi’niissionerhoiding that
the provisions of Karxiatalta.Sehe.d}L1ledl.:fias~te and Scheduled
Tribes {Prohibitionhof bands] Act, 1978,
{hereinat’tet_ SIIOFU has I10

application to .t’lie>.;alie1:ation* ii’1.q_ues.€:ion.

2. Tlie itsubjeet’:.,’Vmatt.efi’–~,ol_. this proceedings is the land

bearing n~3ea’stiring 3 acres 7 guntas of

Kadiébijibbitlfvtl yiAllage.;….«Kasaba Hobli, Chickballapur taluk,
said land was granted to one Muniyappa
a saguvali chit was issued. Accordingly.

–V the land came to be a1.ienai.ed on 3.1.10. .194?’ in
‘:’–..:lF£ii;’UL1_l’ one Sri Ve:nl<af,es.happa. who in turn sold the
.l to others by executing a registei"-'d sale deed and

it "'ultin'121teIy the 5'" resporident lierein. Snii.Shanihan'1ma

5

E

-. V ‘ , Bliln.

n.

the Assistant. Commissioner. Agrieved by the same lhe
appellant is before this Court.

3. From the aforesaid facts. it. is clear ‘ihaisé
alienation took place on 31.10.1947 after the grant H
31.8.1946. It is 30 years the1*eai’termt:he Act
ii is well settled that if the period
the Act Coming into force after filrs_tJlal.iena.iiony
land, the Act has no alienation.

Therefore, the order learned léinéle Judge
cannot be found fault law as laid

down Well as Court. Hence, we do
not lind lay the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly’-,_Vi.he stands dismissed.