IN THE PEG}-I COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED 'I'I~§S THE 8"' BAY OF SEPTEMBER %%
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J.GUmA:{
WRIT PETITION No.25445/:;oc2(sc/
BETWEEN :
DODDA 'FI-HMNIAIAH,
S/O THIPPAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LES
(a) THIMMAIAH
sycmonm THIMMAIAH %
AGE:55YEARS,_. y_ I :
0CC.AGRI-CUL'I'U§RE;l''_ _ _ %
R/o.cHAL1.Arg:ERE«,V
o:sT.cHrrRAm;mA_ L *. ...PE'I'I'I'IONER
(By Adv. for
Bang" Adv.)
_____
1 _ '3'?-!T_E-1' SFRTEKARNATAKA
" 3? Us 'sEe,RE'rARY
REVENUE 'DEPARTMENT
M.S~..BU!_i;U}!\EG,
BANGALORE»56000l
, ., DEEIJTY COMMISSIONER
- * _CVHI'I'"RADURGA DiS'I'RICI'
CHITRADURGA
V _ : ' '' -~'i':HE ASSISTANT CON£MISS£0N=ER
CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION
CHI'I'RA.DURGnA
L
CHALLAKERAIAH
S/OYEERAPPA
AGE.MAJOR,
R/O.CHALLAKE'RE
DIST.CH-FPRADURGA '
C VEER-ANNA SHWARUDRAPPA
S/O.CHALI..AKERAIAH
AGEMAJOR, R] CLCHALLAKERE
DlS'I'.CHI'l'RADURGA _
APPAJ I
S} O.VENKA'l'APPA
AGEJIIAJOR,
R/O.CHALLAKERE,
DI8'1'.CF£I'I'RADURGA
ADAKSHYANI
W/O.MANJUNA'i'&A__ %
AGE.MAJOR,,..
R/O.NO.654~B,_ V
MAHALAxsH!£I'~»1A¥ou1' «-
MANumAmKo.um.;'-» ' '-
S/0.THII.iMAREDDY V.
AeE.mAJo:c:_, * V A. ~- _
R/0.CHlTRADUR(3aATG%¥N
0191:; CHI'I'RADUR§3=A
*13.,é;'m£§'Es1?iwARA. PEA
*3/C¢SH.IVAN?%'.' MAJOR
' -RIO-PF-RF=sHURA.zamRA.
CH&LI..AKERE
CHf£RADL!I§(3A DIST.
B.v.sRzrin*AsA RAJU
E3./0.VEriKATAS'§iIAMY
VA "AGE'.'MAJOR,
" _ % R'/o.r::HAu.AKERE rows
r3gs'r.cHrmAnuRm.
"'I{.G.AsHox KUMAR
* S/0.K.JAYARA.MAF'PA
AGEMAJOR,
R/O.C RE TOWN
CHYFRADURGA DIST.
12
13
14
15
16
i7
' £5,
'"-
w/o.BA.A .-- V
AoE.MAao're,_
R/QMARADIHALM
*£:l$'jf.CEjIfI'RABU!2C=£a
% kvsfixawsa
SfQ;AJ.'JAP1.HB-
" R/O,CHA_.1;I.AKERE
i35
"DISfI'.CH§'I'RADURGA
usm SREENlVAa\
" 5/o.sREEmvAsA sump?
* m::.MA.Io:2,
R/OCHURCH LAYOUT
CHYFRADURGA
RAJALAKSHMi
W] ORAGHAVENDRA RAG
AGE. MAJOR,
R/O. HIRIYUR TOWN
DIST. CHFFRADURGA
36 MOKASADYANINI
W] ORU DRASWAMY
AGEJUIAJOR,
R I O.NEELAKAN'PESHWARA
LAYOUT', CHi'I'RADURGA,
DIS'I'.CHI'FRADURG2\. <
(By Sri.R.Devdass, AGA far Run 123; i ' ' kk X
Smt.S.SL§'atha, Adv. for R- 6,7,'-.10 toll, * . 2 '
o u
THIS wan' PETTTION IS FIi.ED..UEu"D_E-R Am*IcLEs-226 AND
227 012* THE CONS'l'I'1'U'I'ION__ 'op 1*Nn;A,mqjH-«.5 PRAYER T0
QUASH THE ORDER DT.3-12~2k'901~Pé.«S¥:§ED mt R;-as VIDE ANN..B.
DIRECT R-2 85 3 T0 RESUME"T_H£5' LAN3..1ra:..,jQws'r:oN IN
mvouxe or THE Pmnougams THERE :s._v'so1.amon or
GRANT cownmonf, « V . _
'I'HI$ 'c£Jr§1NG"'6N":FoR HEARING, 'ms
DAY, THE comm' MADVE_'l*HE' EOLLOWENG:
A ORDER
father of the petitioner
§§9a.é__ An extmxt of 9 acres 27 gumas
s5}.No.24s was granted in his favour. It
L%%is%%%no: in aisgsum that he bemgs to the depressed ems.
say that the 4m mondent gnaw the
%% 24.o9.1%4 to an extent om acres 32% gunm.
.u '"iiappears there was a partition and in the said 2
.7.
partition,m'1extxmtof2 acrcs23guntaswas afisigncd
with a new Sy.No.473/ IA and the mmahlixlg area of 2
acres 12 guntas as Sy.No.473/2. Since the sale
oontzravcnfion of the terms of the grant, an
is mad under Section 5 ofthe New i %
is violation of the tmms of the
required to be restored.
2. Notices were
there is grant am rm aet-
aside the poswion to the
was rim: they
%a11% ;$:nc%% k A at smali has of sites and they have
V. appl1cab' 1:3. But lwwever, this eontsmtian did not
favour with the Asaastam commimam, who has fl
/
%
.3.
allawedtheapplicamnandrestoredflaelamiinfiavom
ofthe petitioner.
3. The purchasers filed an appeal before
has recorded a findhlg that indeed there is % T'
the terms of grant and Sectien
however accepted the appeal
matter to the 3*!' respondent to 5; '
as to the cxistelwe m’ otm ‘ _ H ‘ans
put up by the res A ‘ := is
* ‘
…. ..counsel for the
that it is immaterial whether the
isifetaixett . in the character of agricumnal
. or He submits that the Act would be
_ He refiw on a rulirg ofthis Court in wee cf
reported in 1m 2601 um ans. fit
/’
.9-
5. It is noticed that some of the respondents are
served and reprcmnted and as agamst sme
respondents, the writ petition is rejected. Indeed it is
be noticed that the order of remand in so far
respondents ms anamed manty and K
cannot be two opposite decisions in
proceec}11m’ .% Indeed if the ordgtrpf h§Eti:s
in respect of some .33″ V’ 3°’?
held bad in respect of it
has L 3 is viohtion of the
terms of the that part of the
A$sistant«v Commissioner. In fact, the
diflerlbf izndicatc only to see whether my
about an ttm disputed pmpeaty.
question of interference with me order of
‘T . . _ wouid mt arise. But however, the Assistant
shall take note of the ruling of me
I
-r
«-
.10..
Division belch of ‘dis Court reported in ILR 2002
3753.
With this obmuon, petifiml stands ijj A
Rule discharged
7. Mr.R.Deu:1ass, learned
Advocate appearixg tbr
to file memo of wpearame
SP8