-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26?" DAY OF NOVEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'I'I'CE RAVI' " V
WRIT PETITION No.39796 CB?' {SC/' X
BETWEEN :
Chellappa Croundar, V
S /0 Mutuswamy
Aged about 62 years, " ' T A * A}
Residing at Kannegowd H " ._1_111<V1i,; _
Kasaba Hobli, H,I).l%iot¢3"1'aiu};, _ % «k
Mysore- %%%% " ....PE'I'I'I'IO_NER
{BY"SRi.i§;S;'R:Au;VEi"a€§"I%TARENDRA GOWDA,
' '»ADVQ CATES.)
AND F1"
_ Mysore.
2. Commissioner,
Htmszlr f;1tib--Division, Hunsur,
Mysotci.
. krémaxai, S/0 K.R.Raju,
'¥.K'a1idasa Road, H.D.Kote Town,
% Mysore. RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R. 1 85 2.)
ti»
-2-
This Writ Petition is filed under Arucles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quashfvi,de
. Annexure-F dated 20.9.2004 issued by. R..1< 331:1'
Annexure~E dated 15. 1 1.22001 passed by R? am! _ "
This petition coming on for hearing
Court; made the following:– A '
okmeeffeié %
The case of the in%
Sy.No.12/28 of Kannegpwd.-mfiysnei, H.D;}{ote§ 'I'al1_1k
was gantcd to the ' The
petitianer on 19.1.1934.
The ‘aggépiiczition under the Km ataka
Schedmed”‘€;aetee Tribes (Pmhibition of
Act, seeking cancellation of
the efevstorafion of the Land before the Assistant
cmfimissiehege “who by the order dated 15.11.2001 set
_ faside the and ordered for restoration. Aggrieved by
V’ Same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Deputy Commissioner, who by the order dated
A ” 20.9.2004 rejected the said appeal. Hence was pe,-gym.
nI'”‘
2. The learned counsel for the petitionervsi1!§ie_its
that the provisions of the Act are not
case on hand and therefore t£1_e….i111;)”ugn_””‘
liable to be set aide. He submitfiedey
proceedings are bad o:iV__ ‘t11V’e faofi;
respondent belongs to in
the proceedings by virtue of the
order dated «Ae;::o,2oo4 “I1¢:so:%s§:oe_as1ee%eVme said Caste
Cert:iIie9.te e.V.§i;at “to oommunity”. The
contefition of : is that the respondent
belongs ‘to V .’fNaiA<3._u"~~*" community". Since "Naidu
iexflncfirthe Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
efirovfisions of the Act are not applicable.
I' leave heard Sri.R.S.Ravi, the learned counsel .
for the petitioner and Smt.Nagashree, the
Government Pleader appearing for the
'V respondents.
(tr
-4…
4. The impugned orders of both the
below couid not be found fault with on %_1;1:e.e: inei M’
the caste of the third respondentm§Vo’zLId’-«.1101
provisions of the Act. However, ” L’
these proceedings, the the
order of the caste of
the third community”.
Therefore, eespondent has
since ef the order dated
5. 1o.2rJo4T, cannot be held
to be the said order is subject
to anj;..appea ” ‘.’._:Vas~ filed and Whether the sa1d’ ‘
‘”e1fde1:’is'” on date as contended by the
Pleader. In that View of the matter,
I deemV__v~it. .ijiist and necessary that the Assistant
Commissioner recon-siders the matter afresh after
into consideration the order passed by the
‘:’_’~e’I.’ai§t1sildar dated 5.10.2004 and after hearm’ g both the
” parties concerned.
gL~,…….
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the
15. 11.2001 passed by the Assistant ..
second respondent in Case 3′.
the order dated 20.9.2UOr%i.4__.passsg’i”‘ by
Commissioner–thc first (A)
12/2001-02 are _’zFl1e Am attcr is
remitted back ééfimissionm to
consider me. in terms of the
order Qf_ 10.52004 and pass
appmfiyiats i;*LT>a=s{i<.)tda:'xce with law.
Wfit– accordingly.
/; sssss sd/…
Judge