M/S. Bettaiah Holy Cross Sister … vs The State Of Karnataka By The on 3 November, 2010

“(BY SRI R.DEVADAS, AGA FOR R1 & R2;

SRI P.B.RA3u, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 15.09.2010 AS PER ANNEXURE~A PASSED BY THE_’2,”°
RESPONDENT.

In WRIT PETITION No.29′.-311/2010:

BETWEEN:

M/S BETTAIAH HOLY CROSS SISTER SOCIETY .

HOLY CROSS CONVENT, SINGASANDRA vILI;AGE~ ..

BANGALORE 560 068 I

REPRESENTED BY ITS A

POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
FATHER ARULANANDAMS. _ .,,PETITION ER

(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR.S.’; ‘ADVQ’CATE”:EQR’-.,¢
AKS LAW ASSOCIATES, ~ADvOCATES)_; _

AND: _ ‘

1. THE STATE OF KA’RNATAKA:._ .

BY THE REvEN.UE~».SEC_RETARY_ _
VIDHANA SOUDHA,*BANGALOgR.E –

2. THE THASI’LDA.Rf;.

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUI<, 
BANGALORE I    '

3. SMT. N.SUNANDAMMA  »--
W/O RAMAKRISYHNAPPA
I MAJOR: '   I.

* R/ATv.’C’IIIIg.I<A BEGUR '\fl'–L-LAGE
BEGUR POST _ "

=.BANGALO’RE*S_OUTH TALUK RESPONDENTS

‘ V”(BY–.SRI”R.DEvADAS, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
_. “SR1 P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

»_THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF

‘THE-VCONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER

<_"DATEfD I2;'08.2010 AND PAHANI PATRIKE AS PER ANNEXURES-A AND

'NOTICI=. 'UNDER SEC.39 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT AS
' '.rP_ER~1ANNExURE~B DATED 29.08.2010 AND ETC.

"THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

.'fjv._IIE<ARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FQ:;LOWING:

QRDER

As both the petitions arise from the same proceed-ing.5,

these petitions are clubbed, heard and being disposesiyoif _

common order.

2. The full advertance to the factsrof «be a

necessary. In the petition filed bythe respov_n”dent LDR

of the original grantee invoking of Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and schedeCi”e–dsTi_ribes”Transfer
of Certain Lands) Act, .1978 the Assistant
Commissioner in favour of
the petitioner of the iands to the
Governmentand. rrestor.e’their possession in favour of
the original grantee eriue’ order, dated 05.08.2010
passed Assi’stant’__’_C:rJmmissioner is challenged by the

petit_ion:e«r. Appeal No.SC/ST/A56/10-11. In the said

‘.’g_avppeaCi. ‘pro.c’eed’iVng.s;s’.;;.th.e Deputy Commissioner had first granted

fan -ex parte order of stay without noticing that the

.1 resp_ondentn No.3 had fiied the caveat petition. When the fiiing of

V.’C-C’gthe.C.’caveatAApetition was brought to his notice, he vacated the

‘ ‘v._isinteri%n’ order of stay.

fiBH.

4

3. In the fitness of the things, the Deputy Commissioner

ought to have recaiied the earlier order granting the stay and

thereafter ought to have heard both the parties and reconsideied

the petitioner’s request for the grant of stay.

the passing of the Assistant Commissioner’s orde~r~-»a’nf:d..

without putting the petitioner on notice r-regvardirafgir

proceedings, the Tahsiidar effected»’th__e muta_ti”on errtry;

of the respondent No.3 based on the”‘viiiissistant’Cornn’iissioner’s
order.

4. The Deputy_iCommis’si’on’er’sgorderdiscontinuing the
interim order”‘of’ t’he’–.Tah’s’ii~eiar’s order effecting the
mutation entry’in:_favourV”of ‘ith_is:’i…rte;’;_’pondent No.3 are chailenged

in these two write’;-e.titions_ resfipectiveiy.

i.’:gi/i”ea.nwizi.ii.e, the “” “Tahsiidar vide his notice, dated

the petitioner to vacate the iands by

“’15.o9.2o1..p%.

riea’rd_r’tf2e iearned advocates, Sri Ajesh Kumar for the

R.Devdas for respondent Nos.1 and 2 (the Special

iiifieputyfiommissioner and the Tahsiidar) and Sri P.B.Raju for the

if if ‘-rrespfondent No. 3.

F2811

5

7. On making their initial submissions, they agree in

principie that these petitions could be disposed of with a

direction to the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of theVr’».§na_Vin

matter itself (Appeal No.SC/ST/A56/10-11). As the__effectivngV’i’

mutation entry is without notice to the petiti_oner’::~an’d: even’

before the expiry of period prescribed foii,fiiingé,the.a.:p.pe-al”ainidfas

the Tahsildar’s order calling upon.»i’th_e.: petit_ioner ye,cate_i’§ the

lands is not in keeping with Ruie 3 the same are

iiabie to be quashed and accVo~~rd:,i’ngi’y tt;e.y”ar,e.:quashed.

8. Similarly, the”D__epuity’not justified in
refusing to co’n’ti’nu;e;gthe’f1:inte’rim-‘or’d’ei*~iiiereiy on the ground of
filing of the caveat Commissioner ought to
have heardthe ‘learned: adfvolcates for the petitioner and the 3′”
responde.njt’i. ought”to..—-.have considered granting an interim

order,’ iiiiiiriat”apa,rt~,::’if..the petitioner is dispossessed during the

‘Cut’t’*….l?’3ndency”‘of the’.V’app5eai, the ends ofjustice would suffer.

gConsi_d’ering ali these aspects of the matter, both these

disposed of with the following directions:

The Deputy Commissioner shali dispose of the main

matter-«Appeal No. SC/ST/A56/10–11 as expeditiously

fight

b)

d)

as possible and in any case within 2 months from the
date of the production of the certified copy ofvVto.day’s
order. t

Both the petitioner and the resporide-nt.–iii’-iE.o.’iit: ..

appear before the Deputy Comtmiss-iohier’:on4.1’8.i1:.~2_ti£{).’

at 3.00 pm. without waiting fofaiiyVnotiteifromii the

Deputy Commissioner. _ V

During the perideni:;*–,I._.’t:of_ petitioner shaii
not be dispossessed..f–rorifi-the-y”i:a_ri’ri”‘i_nAitjuestion.

During thé.:,gipp’eai;”ithe entries in the
revenge were as on the date of
they ‘ order by the Assistant

Commti’s.sio:ier’. _

10.»i.i9.ecordingtiy’–..bot_hyithe petitions are disposed of. No

order as to cost.s;._k’i.,.. __

Sci/r
We Iitdge