IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT Bz_x,g:§€}Ai'j}QREV
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCT'Q_I3i;'1§, 2Qe§_ %% ' '
BEFQ1-as
THE HOWBLE MR. }US*i.' ICE HN;%NA<;AMO}m.NkVpAsV%
W.?.No.25O__T.§'Z_;:§Q_g;,$czs'i')' ~ « T. 5
BETWEEN:
SMT.MAE\I}ULA_ ' _ -
W/O LATE T.;'BA:;p_-1s:""
AGED ABOUT '
AGRICUL'r1}R:S?;f_ " ' .,
R/O 1viAi'vIi{:\T-ILL}iGE
DAVANAGERE TA1;UKa:.D:'sT, '.V_ . .
7 ' _ ~.'"»_'4A ._
S/O A';K..N;gC;.A1?§A, MAJOR
' 3.40':\21;»=~J'1¢:I"'.:1L:;A.c;E
,, . 0 I ; D;4T'xrA1~~1A§;E':2§E' MLUK 3: DIST.
'(By .'<:.'NAGAsHREE, HCGP FOR RE
..R%ONDE1\1"I'S
I' EVLDODDAMANI, ADV. FOR R2)
Olav/K/V
This writ petition filed under Articles 226 81 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 283.2009
by the respondent no.1 vide Annexure-D. it
This petition coming on for preliminary
this day, the court made the following;
The subject matter of t.his._vvrit petition is’oi1e,;;¢re of land” ;
in Sy.No.31 of Mathi village, _Dia”v.3:nagere .’T’al:_l_1l<r, fire land in
question was granted S/o Kariappa Who
belongs to sch,edu?ie_ caste co_rrrrnun~it5z_ on 'upset price. After the
dernise of original gra11teea..Kenchappa, his Legal representative by
name Hantiznanthappa gsoldiilthe land in question in favour of one
T,E{alaicri.sl1nal"undelr a registered sale deed dated 14.7.1974. After
' plthe den1é.se«CE.Balakrishna, the petitioner succeeded to his estate
and she 'vra_s.iin possession and enjoyment of the same. Second
respondent being the Legal representative of original grantee,
i' "i«nit.:'1iated proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Schedule
*:Caste and Schedule'Trihes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
lands) Act to setwaside the sale in favour of T.Balakrishna, to
Law
av
/
1.6.3
resume the land and to restore the same to him. The Assistant
Commissioner vide order dated 30.6.2008 allowed the claim of the
second respondent. Aggrieved by this order ..jof.r:'f§ec–ond
respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal l:'e:i:'ore-ftlielll
respondent in appeal No.PTCL/ CR15/M20003–090;' In the 0
first respondent passed the irrV1pu_4gnedl'j._rA1.terirI1 0rderlA.ond'23i:7i2009" pp
restraining the petitioner frorri*«.interferin'gjfivith the second
respondents possessioniarridAer1jo§zmentfof'the land in question.
Hence 'tl'1i£..petitioii:;;
ll,.€£1lICl. leairne”d.clo;1nse1 for both the parties and perused
the entire \l§v’ri_tl papers
not in dispute that during the pendency of appeal
*b.efo’reltlzegfipiislt respondent there was no stay in favour of the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the second respondent filed a
00 xr_nei?:io with xerox copy of Mahazar and RTC extract stating that
glpursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on
at
30.6.2068 the iand in questian was resumed to
second respondent was put in pot-taessizm ::ind_V.hEs-T4;1a1ne’.vvé’as
entered in the RTC extract. On the éthe’rV_hand, ii_’ii’n_<eir.
for the petitioner disputes the Vthéit paper
and that petitiener the lané
in question. Be that as wiii be met, if
the parties". zzieifitttiiiiiiiietatns-qua and first
appeai within two months
from cifite' ' of this. order. Further the
petiiitiner isiiiaistj a:_iibc§ivt}r9"ti:1 question the alieged Mahazar and
i -alsdethe £'l3tf}'..Qf seceziti respond:-:n£'s name in RTC in accoréance
t
W'iti1'vt}:1e above observation the writ petiticsn is herefiy
$£/5*
§";}i@@§
VDKB