High Court Karnataka High Court

R Manjappa S/O Late Rangappa vs State Of Karnataka Dept Of Revenue on 30 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
R Manjappa S/O Late Rangappa vs State Of Karnataka Dept Of Revenue on 30 July, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
   €'§P"v..I{ARNATAI{A

-1-

IN THE man COURT or KARNATAKA,  
DATED THIS THE sou: DAY OF JUI!Y;_i    T 1 L
BEFORE m ': %% k x
THE HONBLE MIe.JUs*:fsQE  %  _
WRIT PETITION No. sékies/200.1   V A

R MANJAPPA 5/£1 LATE.fi-!!.Pi£}APPA   ~ '"
AGED ABQUT..6'2.¢_Y_RS, ' -  '
R/A.c;0.M.uiME$H_. .5 .  
DRIVER, CHETfi«iAiW§.__HG$PI'FAL,.  
T.B.RoAb,imG,
VIIEHANA vE£«:1:)m,
~  BANGAL{)RE--1,
 RERBY ITS SECRETARY.

 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
" CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT
CHIKMAGALUR.

3 THE ASSISTANT commssronsn
TARIKERE'. sue-mvxszom, ;
TARIKERE. 

 



.2-

4 THE TAHSILDAR
KADUR TALUK,
KADUR.

5 RIYAZ AHMED
S] O.MD.KASIM SAB
MAJOR,
R/A.BEHIND URDU SCHOOL,
ASHOKNAGAR,
KADUR.

(By Sri : R DEVDAS, AGA FOR 31-4     '
(SR1. N s SANJAY GOWDA, B VLHNTO,  '   " '
M/S. GSV A/'S as H R VASUDHA;~..;$D'_vf Forms)'

THIS WRIT PETI*'fI_GN 1s§iF:I:;EI§V':§Vjv*--:>ER A;é'ricLEs 225
AND 227 01:' THE co:~:s',*1f:':'U*r;;:):r-: 0:? An~m_1A PRAYING TO

QUASH v';_;:)i3"'}1:s;:>1:«.9riTic2_i§i"(i0M1NG ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, ':.'m's DAY,' .T1»m'coUm MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

” 2 of a certam’ Imm’ ovable property

‘V the: definition of the term “grant” under

& ” L The Scheduled Caste and Schcduied Tribes

% “(1é;o13ibit:on omzansrer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, for short

Act, having transferred thé land in favour of the 5*

respondent Mohammad Alim, by way of a sale, alleging that
KM

the transfer was one falling within the definition of the

.5”?

. “{‘,eimnié2e’i9ne1j, District, who by order cit.

confirmed the order of the Asst.

T u “‘i)I)jeciions dt. 30.8.2004 of the 5″‘ respondent.
_ . PJ\

-3-

term ‘transfer’ under the Act and in *t1u1e
provisions of the Act, instituted proceedings
Commissioner to declare the f’ ”

restore the Land. The Asst. hi ‘
31.12.1999 Annexnre-D,
petitioner’s earlier re;)”1;e.-§a…_cV’:vnf:.=V1Vtio»1’i’~. the
transaction of sale 1. ‘wasv’AAre_vfiected by
endorsement dt. V6.11. therefore, the

second represeii%;§t’ion:3._for ‘the””ve1j.?-seine relief was not

maintainabzé’ j rejected the application.
Aggieveiiby, the petitioner preferred an

appea} nndéex if—A of the Act to the Deputy

jand dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ

V’ 2. The petition is opposed by filing statement of

.5.

a reasonable opportunity of healing to the 3
and to pass orders strictly in J

contentions of the parties are kept opegi,

L11.