High Court Karnataka High Court

Shakuntalamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Shakuntalamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 August, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
 

IN THE man comma' or KARNATAKA ,.     

DATED THIS THE 12TH BAX? 01%%.;§tJGt;STk%200a k X 7

BEFORE   

THE H()N'BLE MR. JUsT1 OF 2005
<'»'z»*==rs   

IN W? 14663]   ' '

sHAKL,i%NTALA%é:_MA*§.«'  %

w/0 Lfi;I'E-- vEER:;jj%NLAGAp1§A _'
AGED ABOUT 42?.YE»ARS"  

R] 0 THARALU VI LLAGE3 
UTTARAHALL} HOBLI '-

 _ BANEEALGRE SOUT§j__'f£1LUK

  _iN_i_V'P ::1'4f>t36,?:2Q05

T' £:__:§ioia1AN5  
S/G"JE3NAKA'I'APPA

 *._AGED'ABl:}UT 36 YEARS
V .   Rf C)" THKRALU VILLAGE
 '* L".F'I'ARAHALLi HOBLI
'  i~3A1\i\"'iALORE SOUTH TALUK

... PETITIONS}?

 PETITION ER

V  " (By Sri :1' N vrswnrmma, ADVFQR PETITIONERS )

 9'

\./

 



 

' 1 THE 'STATE OF KARNATAKA   
BY ITS CHIEF' SECY  _ 
DEPARTMEN? or REVENUE
M '.3 BUILDING  
DR 8 R AMBEDKAR VEEDH} 
BANGALORE~{)1.   * " '

2 THE SPECIAL DEPIITY C:0'i9sMs:Sid3.'§;R
EANGALORE DIST'  .  -   AV " 
TALUK (};1?E'ICE EIUIl{D_I.NC:'r,   I

3 THE Assi?}:;QnfiM1.s.§$§io.r§ER  
sAI~:Te.ALoRr«;;:.soU--'I}:. suamwsiom
':ALUi< 'o':?F_1_c:-21% 1;;:;_rLmNc_;I
BANG_ALO_RE}9   'I

4 KAU&§AL'{A EAI; ' 
. 'W10 KRz.sHNoJI- mo
»"-EMAJOR   ..... 
Rim No 972, 4TH E BLOCK
» _   1.o1*;;»g':m_A1N, RAJAJINAGAR
 TA3.§m_GALQRE--:o
- r I   '  RESPONDENTS

(COMMON)

~ ~ (By s:~;_;_”‘R DEVDAS, AGA FOR R1–3 )

” I x(BYL.SRI.”R B SAEDASIVAPT-‘A, ADV FOR R4)

I ” THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
I 2’26 AND 227 OF THE CONSFITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
I “TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. }.’7.11.2{)04 ON
THE FILE €)F’ THE SPECIAL BEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT, VIBE ANNEX.E. a .
‘K

3

THESE PETITIONS, COMING~~-~..u.i”O.N”l~::: »

PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ’13- G’ROUP,flTHIS’-VDAY-THIE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Common of of fact arise for
decision making in with the
consent of parties, petitions
are and are disposed off
by .. ‘ “l

‘2. ‘I11 Iaetitions, the Asst. Commissioner

thevplea of the petitioners that the land in

qu:ésuon*§:raslIls:igranted land within the meaning of the

phitaseililunder Sec.3 (b) of the Mysore ( Personnel

it lnams Abolition Act, 1954, while

— the Deputy Commissioner in appeals, preferred by the

it iijnrchasers, the alienee, were allowed and the orders of

the Asst Commissioner, set aside by recording a

finding that the lands did not fall within the definition

M

U1

Ka:matals:a Scheduled Caste and

Tribes(Pr0hibiti<)i1 of Transfer

19'7'8. The facts of these idemtieal;

so, the erders Annexuree"a§L»in V

passed by the Spl. under
section 5 of the my opinion,
cannot be within the

meanixxg of in the Act.

4. E?_e11£:sxIi11g§V ” 0f the Full Bench in

Md”._;J;afi.’ar’e me” eeception can be taken To the

and conclmions arrived at by the Spl.

1″ in the orders impugned.

petifions are accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

Judge

csg