IN THE HIGH COURT C3? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS me 20*" my OF NOVEMBER, f"'j-_
BEFGRE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN:;'S§;L4}3'?TA'NAi6{1§)aAQ": _
WRIT PETITION NO.8€.'34v8/2GG 8'----(?;L\§-Ri§;S%}¥§}"
BEf1'WEEN:
N. Ramaiah
S} 0 €3hik'ka113z1jappa V
Aged abeut. 63 ycar:s*¢ .
Rfa 8{>mmax1daha§§,.A'Vil1agi¢ I _ ~ j
Jiganifiobli,
Bangalerzz D is?;1*i(:t;.V V' -~ * ; ' .;Pe.tition.c2r
(By Sri V.
1. "'T5h'évS'ia11E:V"Qf
Rep '"3331 A its
G<')va:,;'I1me11t " 'T
V _ E€€:Vez:i':1e Bepaftment
' S. Building
' " H " .E3»ea1g{a1ort::*56{} 001.
u ' V ' ' -- » '"i'a}«1sii(}.a1"
" ' ' 'fimtkai ']'ah1k, Anekal
VT '_ ' * Bangalore {)is¥:ri<2t.
1
IN?
3
3, Smt. Lakshmamma
Wjo lata Kakappa
Ag:-xi abaut 64 years
R] 3. Bommaz1daha}.1i Village
Jigani Hobli, Anekai Taiuk
Bangalttarc Dismlct. ..F€esp~::i;';{1éfitsAV u 2
(By Sri R. Kumar, HC1GP.,fer R: 35 K2; j? '
Sri G38. Prasad Raddy, Adv._. f-or R3) "
'I'his writ petition is ffiefl xziiésr Aftic1es--2'26 of V
the Ckxzstituiion of India, quashfiilc imptlgncd
orxicz' fiatczti ¢i~--12--20()? passcdV.Vb3'--.f._i:n': 'R2, Tahsildar, Anckal
Vida A:nnexu17e--E. ' '« ~ ,h
This wzit petition ('3}§}})§iK!..i.."1Vg hearing it}
B--Gmup, this day' £116: Qouz"t'313.e:q,e~,fi3.g: f(:x1'£«;::Wi11g;--
. . ' .
Tfie: "(3rderVV <:fV Vidif Annexure~E, dated
4.12f20€}'? i'S gansé qiiéstion in this writ petition.
,, fticords tiisclese that the husband sf
_ via, Kakappa. wag the helcler of Viflage
V --V Giiiéej bearing Sy.No.2'?, measming 1 acre 20
K V' 4 ,:gimtn3.svVV"Situateci at Boilimanciahaliy Village (land in
-- fifiééfion} was attached to 'chi: Viflagfi Office held by
" Hélaiiappa. Saié Ka kappa said the property in question
W)
-3,
% Accarfiingly, it S€f:1"iZ1S, a sale deed is exar3eut»3_ci.__"cz:;§{"5i'1:;<§"~« V.
tilird respendeant Qflfl Muifiyeliappa in fav0@i§i:": 1'e§j;_i?;f#éi_§fi,'
GI: 13.8. 1999. Thereafter, <fi1*1§:i?_
{3.S.E%0s.14C?/2004 and ?e--a5/2905 argmed. * K
3. Sri Eeunsel
appearing an 0f that both
the rsasons whilé rejecting
the _ prayer net acceptable,
iI1a.smuǤ*V1'fi'"a:$ Vfiiade in favaur of the
Vifiage to the benefit of the
13'u1'ck1;1'se1ji.e:, 151151 that sake deed executed by
Kiiffice Vvfiffider pursuaiat to the decree is
saie cieeci of the petitioner and
_ tI16i'éfore__'fi;$ :S¥..fi}'$€i(1"¥..¥.t3I}1Z sale deed czazmot be taken imio
H " " 'fc;r rejecting the prayer of the pefitiuner.
V7
. 5,,
However, the writ petition is oppesed by the
1ea:me<i eounsei appearing on behaif of respondent No__,3.
4. It is Ililvi in dispute that the petit:io11er ‘hate
purchased the preperty an 22.6.1972; on “wh_if:;}”:..– A’
the Ea;-Cid was not regranted. However, Z ‘
regranted in faveur ei’ the legal SE. 1.
he-idea” of the ‘v”i1}.age Ofiiee on,1′?’__.8. 193 Thexeefeef V
p€3fifiOi1€i” flied apgiicatimi pra}§ii’1§f{};” af
this sale ée(s:d “i;§’er~.Vfl’a¥1sfidar p’ursuant t0 the
dfittifiiflfii bf 4′ .t;’I:e’=. VBivi:_é~:§ieqfi’ Bench of this Caurt.
State of xarncmma 85
in 1931(1) KLJ 1. As has been new
j’u(igmeI1i:, if the héfider 01″ the
V VV authééiénzeezii hafder of a service imam land had alienated
H H ” the’ “Village Gfifiees Abafitien Act came into force
and §j€ib:’e it was Iegazited to him under Section 5 or 6,
T fis§’t}1e case may be, of the Act, the aiienee acquires title
V5
In Vi€W of the same, the impugned Grder dated
4.12.200? Vidfi Am1exurt:»E3 passed by the Tahsildar,
is Iiabie to be quashed. Accerdingly, same is
The appiicatien flied by the petitiener
‘Y’ahs:iidar for regtflaflzatimi of 31¢’ _sa}t:_–‘ ‘de’e::{i’_’: ” ”
aiiawed.
Petitim}. is ezlZo:;»edac:cL}1fgiii:f;Tg£y.A’v~ .
*Ckf- _. _