IN THE H16}! com? or' KARNATAKA,
DATED tr:-{Is THE 29%! m*:'"0:?
BEFQRE A V 'H u
THE HOITBLE MR. msricfi*g:"RA1fi"Mqi£AN §€E D1)3;2'
WRIT m«;*rmo:§ %1§o.:5ost§3;; 2jao4 {sc1s_;:1
BETWEEN
L B RANGANA3?1~m._ . ;
S/O LATE B$R_AP1§2x ..
AGE: 68 YRS, Q::--£::'2=s€;.R;c3:3--1;E=UR'z_ST%, '
R/O HALELAKKQQ,-.Ll V£I.;LA'GE,
TQ. 'i'ARi'¥{'Ei713Ei; 91$? CE--flCKMAG{§LUR. PETITIGNER
(By '
AND:
- 1 '5e.BV mm:
_ s;' EASFIMAL
MAJG'R,':R_{O LAKKOLLI VILLAGE,
*rQ;~VTAR;m«~:RE, 9131'. CHICKMAGALUR
2 THE §lE}i5UTY COMMISSIGNER
{::H;cI<MAGAL{3R 13:31, CHICKMAGALUR.
ASSISTANT CGMMISSIONER
";TAR:KERE S{JB--DIVISION,
' " TAREKERE,
1323:'. CBICKMAGALUR. RESPONDENTS
(33,; Sri: K N DAYALS, ADV FOR R1}
(BY SRE. R DEVADAS, AGA FOR R2 fir. 3)
TFHS WRIT PETETION IS FRED UNDER ARTICLES 225
AND 227 SF ‘THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
M
QUASH THE ORDER D’-I’. 1?.n.2003 VIBE ANN;-§X.T;B.
PASSED BY R3 AND ETC.
THIS PETHION, comma ON FOR ~
THIS DAY THE comm MADE THE FOLLQWIN<.3fi %
OR9ER' "
The petitioner when granted aéres of L’
land in Sy.No.2/P of Doddak{11§fiL1:
Hobli, Taxikere Taluk i4;nI _i(:}CI’ was ifiéizeci with
a Saguvali Chit on 29-0.191975_;5ea;1+:t:g3f$.C.No.8/72»73
with aifiorzdificizz”–git’A ;Tj:¥;:¢::1?a1i:=.1-*1atio3″1 for a period of 15
years from phczfidézté’ The petitioner claiming to
be1§}:’ig’V1v:o~ ‘lviedén’ a notified Scheduled Caste and a
d¢’;3«rgs:«:§_f:(i% criéiss, sold 1 acre 20 guntas out of 3 acres
i1h,ée1; éi.’C-gi’:§§€éred Sale Deed dated 26-O3-199i2 in
‘. faV(}”uLa}.iT. flachimtxthu, S/0. Karzdaswamy and the
V’ ‘~ r$1’i1;’ga_i.;1i1V’:.g lyacns ’20 gunias, on the vezy same day to K.
Viaefiappan, S/0. Kuppamm Gmmdar. The said K.
‘4 Veerappan, it is stated, conveyed the property in favour
of Nachimuthu on 26-04-« N95 under a registeredb§E€
Dead by which Nachimuthu became the ow__1jér” _
entire extent of 3 acres of ganted jand. -%;i<:s::: " ~ ..
said Nachimuthu sold 12116 entire ;e_xte.;1t. A'
1st respondent. The said _;fes}5011'é1ant,= i'£
purchased yet a;t1<}ther__exte:1t_ aegres 'bf f'g1"aIzted
to the petitioner's bra-'tbgzr, by Kumar, from
the said 1\Iachi14r1':11;§111.:""'It' fu;c§herLs:ggt§é that the 132:
responden1;,«'i3;?1 2f.'V3;cr§§'éVV'0f land in favour
of """ and TH.
Giziyappa;V_1:.¥1der.V逧§jé:*at§ ~s;;a3e Deeds dated 18»-O9-2000.
Allfigfimg <:§3nifey$§i§1ce of the iand axecuted by the
é1:.&_26~0V3§'i992 is contraly to the provisiona of
I Castes and Scheduied Tribes
(Prt3§:1ibi,_:i:;fA1«:"'t:§f 'I'ransfer of czertain Lands) Act, 1978, (for
':3;c:i'), flied an application under Section 5{1)(i) of
ifié' ' Act: before the 3rd raspondent ~—- Assistant
fiommissioner ta declare, as £11.11} and voici, the Sada
transaction and to rsstore the land to hm, alraigrxing
the 131: respondent as party-respondent, who an netice
H
entered appearance and resisted the claim. The
Assistant Commissioner by order dated 7~11–2()0'2
A:m1exure–"A", held that the petitioner belongs toV.VMfléda
casts, a declared Scheduled Tribe and that§i_T".tii:?:.'_' _
bearing Sy.N0.2/9 was granted Iaiid fal1in'g= '–1:Vl"1'~':i" =
defmition of the said {emu i"und<'::%:'
accordingly deciamd as void
transaction as no V__pr*iorV_..a§j11r(:AejaI si' State
G0verr;iiisi1ti* tadalisziate the iand. That
order sias in an appeal before tbs
Deputiy {3oaiIz;iis'si'c3nér,Vi"iH1der Ssctisn 5~A 0f the Act}
'i V. v£*i1ef1..1feg'.sféféd as PTL.30/ '2()O2~{)3, was ailowsd
1-2003 AI}I1€X1}}"C-"B". Hence, this
W:it..pe1j~iia_1§T.~' A
A. i."-"'i'he petitisn is opposed by fiiing Statement of
-__’«::i;’_tV3Vj’t:z:i,i::s:1s dated 3-3-2009 imaralia contending that the
-“pétitioner bsiongs to ‘Msdara’, a backward csmmunity
in the State of Karriataka and not {:0 ‘Mada’ casts, a
M
A salé L’
K)!
declared Scheduled Tribe. In support of 3
contention, the 1st respondent places re1i:;1;f_1;;fe.;t3’1e– _’ V’
Sale Deed deelaflng that the ‘1
‘Medara’ as aiso the Sche0L{}ertif:e§§te of
brother certifying that he iielexzgs ft)-. in
addition, it is stated flafkast fofmu, though
the petitioner did not,…d.is::1eee V ‘ebeiongs tar} a
notified Tfibe;, ‘V’.x1e§?e§f€1x”‘:eie’es, the “Ahavalu
Takthegé; nieiiifained by the Revenue
Departzfieni % -~ he beiongs ts ‘Andhra
‘ ” -. . heard the iearrled counsel for the panties
‘the order impugned as weil as the order
‘guof the..2iesiVstant Cemmissioeer, what is not in dispute
f_°is,:ft23.t She land in question is granted in favour of the
V’ petitioner. £11 the revenue record kI10’W1″1 as the
“Ahavalu Takthe”, the Tahsiidar paints eut that as
against the name ef the applicant: -~ petitiener herein, it
MK
ailowed the appeal by the order dated 1’I(‘; ]V.:
Annexure-“B”.
5. There is considerable _forceWin”–the sut_;:fii’sSio§i’of
the 1t’3aI’I”l€d counsel for the ‘;’:ixép11ty
Commissioner fell in afijjeél on the
prenzzise that the pc:tiVt3ioz_1t;fi5_VV ._ -~1:>e10ng to a
Scheduled $im:<:: 'Mada'
COI}1I111iI}ity "'iZC§ .W'hiC}1 f1=£3'_.béififigs was inciuded in ths
Presidentiaj Vr1o?ti_f'ic:.%;?ati(§:;A_:A"as" a Scheduled 'Fr'ibc: in the
}f€a1';"1g:?'(3',' V In almost identical
"ci1fcum§tafice_3, though not similar, a Diszision Banch of
I NACBIMHTHU GOUNDER & OTHERS
VS}: 85 OTHERS}, rejected, as not
V. , TI1x'f'.I}@J31fi ,:" "the contentien that when a caste earlisr is the
.' Cbn$fituti.Gr1 axnandmént was; not listed as a Schedzxfied
'"{§aste, and fi1<*':I'{i':f{)I'€ they are 1101: persona beionging ta
Scheduled Caste. Appljsing the very $223116 prim-::ip}<~": ':0
i 113. 1999 f:<:AR 2506 M
the facts if this: case, the petitioner if belongs: "mi ~
Caste i1:1(:lz,1ded 111 the 'P1'eside1a_t;':ga§..notfi(:éfi;ti:§:j °:.1$}_ a-._ 2
Schaduiad Tribe in the year 1976;"it
the f{§)€titiOI1€I' did not beiorig-v._:§C2..Vth$.V'said–.§agt€%; b:'2 3:116 " V
date 0:" 93111:. The fineiigxg Qf'"§i;é:_: ;'§1b'p¢1Iat,éi Au.t:gera:y in
that regard is perverse a'1$1{i'11}t;;SVis;1StgLi:fi:-i.feIéé;.__
6. iiét I’€Sp()I1d€flt was
a110wed v_Q:1 izi¢cfi~écf_: setting aside the
order the Aséigtfiiit’Qéinfizissioner, declaring the saie
t:ra1’1sactic$i3.__4 as izoicl, the reason far the 1st
, A_ resgmiidént 11$” vt¥>vV_§}}1r:stic>n the finding confmning that
., pe§itiQ;ié2’* belongs to Mada Caste, a deciared
If that is so, than the 131: mspondexzt
is to an oppartunity to put forth his cantamion
A ‘ ‘¥:*i«VEf:fT’€$1*€. the Appeilate Authoxétg that the petitiener daes
fi1§’E belong to ‘Mada’ COIIi1I}1lI”1it}’ but to ‘iviaciara’ or
‘Andma Madarir’, since the records of the pe¥;it3′;oI1e:”s
bmther over the e:3m:mu:”aity they bvaleng to are 110?;
M
considered by the Appellate Aut,ho.rity. The ”
the year 19?2, while the first sale transact.iefxV».jS:~A.i:3it;i1e’ »
year 1992, though without the
much after the expiry of the-._perit.§dV_ Of neefleaiieiiafiiinii; L.
therefore, Whether then: wae 1j1eec”i”*t.:e}T ‘eeeiare the
perrnission of the (30i:e1:f1n;e3:1t;.j_ “n.Q§.A’é1d(1ressed by the
First Appeflate .A§_1tI1e;*it3?, faS= the order
impugned. _–E1*–.a. étfiese ~eirei1§nst,{‘a3?;::es,:”iie useful purpose
wouid petitioner 1:0 question
the erderu. ‘She Appellate Authority in a
Writ preeeediag. ‘ ~
‘ ;._ Fev1″=_ 1:hese reasons, it is apprepriate that the
o’t:ie1″A be quashed in its entirety, and remit
‘¢__the to the Deyuty Cemrnissioner for
A “:L:”ee1%i$idemtien afresh reserving liberty to both the parties
put forth all their pieas, and to pass orders in
accordance with law, in any event within 8. period of
M
four months from the date of mceipt of 3.
of this order.