High Court Karnataka High Court

Sanjiva Shetty vs The Asst Commissioner Mangalore … on 3 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sanjiva Shetty vs The Asst Commissioner Mangalore … on 3 October, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA A'? BANGALORE

DATED mis THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2003  

BEFORE

THE I~iON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJFI' J.(}L?3*€J§§§Ig..  75f - _ J

WRIT PETITION NO.3 1 696/:?..2O.'¢3'$.f;";':'s"(':g.:"~'A'¢-':7. %&  S «  T T 7

BETWEEN :

Sri.Sanjiva Shetty,

S / o.Man}'appa Shetty, __  _

Hindu, aged about 50 years,'  * __  

Residing at Hosabettu viilaggg   V'   .. 

Kulai, Mangalore D..:K.__  W  _  -..;PE"TI'I'I()NER

(By s§m.safias3   Adv.)

AND :

_1_. The Assistant Cemmisssioner,

'uMa1:gé11Qre &':1;b~Div'iSion,

V.  M3~"ga39T'?»3vfK* ..

 » . 2. Tim"  --CQ Ifin1issioI2$r,



('State oi'..Ka;nataka,
';Rép1*-e_;se:1ted by its

T 'SefcI7e%;aI'y,

--  Revenue Deparunent,

   1v:,,s.Bu31ding,
- " Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
' " Bangalore «- 560 001.



provision, which was prevailing was, the Maoros Boaro

Standing order.

3. Mrfianath Kumar Shetty, 
appearing for the petitioner submitsAA't1'j;at.ev
granted under the said Standing 
41(4). it is to be noticed that an' of
ieased in favour of one Jaiirebi  A Thetvvsaid
Jainabi purchaseé the $.01. 1974

and the petitioner'  tilse  Jainabi

in the year"  ciaiming that he
belongs to:VV"€1fre«'.  "made an application
under the_   resumption. O11 notice, the
 it statement of objection inter

alia 3"? respondent does not belong

to the d.e_preseed’..– Class and however, the noo-aliearition

” was for 10 years under the Madras Board

«E.’it”–.xS:;rfrding:’..éorder. Indeed it is to be noticed that the 3rd

‘oreepozident did not participate in the proceedings. But

r…t l”10Wever, the Assistant Commissioner has ailowed the /£2
. _, :7

/

appfication and resumed the land ts the Government.

The same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner,-

4. As against the said orders, the pet3’tionerAV.i7ii’e£Vi:’s;”V;. ~

writ. petifion before this Court. This Court

writ petition and remitted the mat?-Zierh to ‘ the J

Commissioner for flesh “–:1ireeting.. ” the

authorities to record a finding “of
the 3rd respondent as the
depressed ckass and what__is:i’ period.

After resntIip*e’en}i,thef:-Assistant Commissioner has once

again heltifl tilat to be resumed to the

Government. confirtned by the Deputy

:_f’C’0mmissiOI1cI’;. I-{enee’,””i.i’1is petition.

Kumar She-tty, learned counsel

the petitioner submits that the earlier

it issned by this Court has not been considered.
submits that since the grant was of the year

‘T » V _ “t934itse}f, the relevant law prevailing then was Madras

Boalfl Stanciing Order and non.-aiienation period was

– 5 _

(a) Petition stands allowed’.

(b) The impugled orders at Annexures

stand quashed.

(C) The matter stands remitt£:§d;AA»V is ‘ j_

Commissioner for fresh A’ ‘

(d)T}r1e Assistant Commis”si.e:’;er s}f1s:11I’e1;”ec§ )zjdVVV 21
finding whether zflqe 3:d”‘res:;diident ‘ijeiozisgés to
depressed class the land is
ganted Iilldfil’ :.§1L1″{_’… Standing
Order, ” ” 0f non-

:’ 31 1; ~ 9

(e) Tee .As=§:smjz1i:’~C;o:i§missioner shall also mow
the in case of Baptist
_ cited V/S. Parameshwartx
_9the’rs…_.reported in 2003 Am – Kant

HV.T(3A=,R.; i4__7.

I R_11 iTAe’v-.§.§:jter1§ie.A’.*;V;1i?:’u”s’,o1′:1?ie.

9.” i§4vf;;;’?.VDevdass, iearned Addiiiorzal Govemment

appearing fer respondents 1 to 3 is pemmztsd

memo of appearance within four weeks.

sdl-‘
\~ ‘judge
SP8 ‘