Loading...
Responsive image

Shri Jayakumar Annappa … vs Shri Laxman Rama Mang on 4 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shri Jayakumar Annappa … vs Shri Laxman Rama Mang on 4 March, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH comm OF..KARNAT;§4'§{;§~;»    %  A

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DH»?RWAby://   

EDATED THIS THE 4T" L;A[3*oF ")\.(aA§C!«-I!"-=26€§u9M  k
';:41'_BEFC§§E,A:VL"':«    
HONBLE MR3 USTICEv*§s§fjHAN.:'»$F§?\b§%TANA6OUDAR
 .+g243x2m7 (sc/51')

Betwecxgmj,   "~ -» .  "  

Jayamxtlfiar 

Aged abouffii yeazts " "  

R/0 S0u11dat§;i..f\1iIJage_ A' S
Talukagfiaibag V 

 A'  .v .. Petitioner

 (  vSx:i..._VAla'3ra'3'.z;ji.A'i'2:..*-'>1,_.'«11* S. Patil, Szzflomctsel for

'     Advocate )

 

« ~  Lam1dan Rama Mang

., Agagl aibeut ".73 yaars
"  I'1:Z'[_e_»_Souaéatt:i village
 Raihag,

'. '    _Ii}istz"i(:1: Belgaum.

A V    A }.  )2. The Tahsildzar,

Raibag Taiuk
Raihag,
{District Balgaum.



..2..

3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Chikodi,
Dist: Belgaum.

4. The Deputy Commissioner,
Belgaum,   .
Dist: Belgaum.      

( By Szfi 'l'.N .Rag}111pathy for Sri      
Advocate for R~1 and Smt,:V_idyavathi;  A
HCGP for R-2 to 4) V ~. 

..s*

cm
I 2

up
I

This Writ Petitio1}'is}"fi1ed_"u1z_d;ér. Arficlcs 226 85 227 of the
Constitutign of India prajritlg. t0_ wt} aéitic» tiac impugned order
passeci by the fourth resgiqndénf +--'«..De-911:3: Commissioner,
Bfilgaum, dated 2'E¥.3.2{':O"?"*J.id.e"£§11nexuré%*B confirming the
order passed fihe *__As,st;Cd*mIi1iSsiQQ}::r, Chikodi, dated
'22.'?.2OG6 vid,-2     

This   been heard and reserved for
orders on 2?',..2.i'«1(}()*9_' an&..}fimnounced the Grders on this day
the 4t1§1Mgxrch'22:}Q«_;r.V V '

ORDER

has purchased tins pmperty maxing

Z _ Sufvs ‘ /2, measuring 17 gtmtas, situated at

“=%L samd§a::£ Viilagc of Raibag Taluk, through registered Sale

._ Z)¢Ved– i’n tha year 1994. He is in pOS5§€SSi(I)I} of the property

” -by} virtue of the said Sale Deed. The entries are mutated

U in his favour. According to him, he has improved the land

by spxezixcling considerable amaunt: af meney.

\/”‘

2. The Tahsildar, Raibag ‘I’ah£13._I«:V,~–»..A4_:’:: 2

submitted a report: ciated 14.6:.=.20Q6 f?te

Commissioner aileging that.»’th.e iarfid ‘Was i:1: *

favour of the pefitioner in Iéaznataka
Scheduied Castes 8: ‘(Proifibition of
Transfer of Certain ;’\;e:i1j:~, referred to
as the said report, the
Assistant__ to the petitioner.

§tateme’e;t: flied by the petitiorxer to the

said notieee = v’1′;’:1ei’ea..*’£:é{;t,4 the impugned order Vida

_VVAn1″:e’};1 n*e-fA’ is~..V§é,1ssed (rm 22.7.2006 by the Assistant

V. the petitioner to restore the land

iii féi.?{;1;1:*” reependent No.1 herein under Section 5 of

V the The eeid erder is cenfrmed by the Deputy

“‘ i3emm;£&s$iener, Beigaum, vide Axmexurefifl’ dated

. Both the orders are questioned in this Writ

“–j3étition.

-4-

3. The records maintained by the

arts: Inade avaiiabie by the 1eaI’I;r:é” G@ye§mmé;§i._fldvbcé1te ‘ V

for perusal of the Court. l’~§earci ‘S I*i'”~

iearned counsel appearing “of j.ii:1:::

‘i’.N.Raghupathy, lea1*:;1t:e;§ behaif of
respondent No. I ‘V ” leamad
Gavemment E13-ficficr of Siiate and
perused

4. is Jayakumar S. Patj}, iaarneci

Smiioxf_CouIise{‘azp§eeiiv’ifig’ o1} behaif of petitioner that the

V’ oFdsf§”:’§2,-fised tlié’ authorities below are: not justified,

335;; are passeé in violation of prixzciples Of

He also argued 0:1 merits cf the matter.

= .«.g§gyVVV”coI1tra, Sri ‘i’.N .Raghup3.t11y, iearnad counsel

on behalf of respondent No.1 argued in support

“ihe orders of the auflzorifies below. Be Cfilfitfifidfjd that

there is no _dispute that the lands are gI’é’33Ii¥:6d lands and

.–=”’\.

g; s.’

‘F’

,.5,.

that the gantees are Hafiyans. He further argued, V3;.i:1:s§t.}§hs

presumption arising under Section 5 (3) of the,

not rebutted by the petit:iene1f,_ Based:i:j.ofi~:: th¢::fs%_:”‘~

submissions, he argued for dismissalgbf

Smtvidyavathi, Z A ‘

appearing 0:1 behalf of fghe StatsVV:é«}_so» Vsfupport of

the orders passed by ;2i1:I;I:29r{§t.ies”

5, .;3:;¥f?)t’efi;i~§r§;:1t’ic31f1<2d, hssistarxt Commissioner
has iss£i¢3d" nefics after gsttjng the report

from £118 Ts1hsi_1dzar,–. 'i.'Iu1é:~"'1fepor%: of the Tahsiidar is dated

r Thsfiefitioner herein has filed statement of

A~f;l:3,.7.2OO6. Thereafter, 110 Sort of en<:;u_iry is

hc:'l(1__ bj; Aéssistant Commissioner. Without further

notice "a.;}f:1 Without hearing the petitioner, the oréer is

as per Am1r5:xu:*e~'A' dated 22."?.2€}06 by the

V% Assistant Commissioner against the petifionsr. The crdsr

* sf the Assistant Commissions}: is in vioiation of pzinciples

sf natural j"£ZiStiC€, inasmuch as, 119 reasozzabie

V

.5-

epgpermrzity of being heard is fiver: to the petitioner.

Rule 3 (4}{5) of the Kamataka Scheduled

Scheduled Tribes (Prol’1ibiti0n of ‘:’:~a1;srer«?§fj’

Lands) Rules, 1979, require that ,Q4ppofti’1f::it}* lief eifigeiifigii

heard should be given to the 15e’tit;i§}z1er.’ii’~. V’

dispute that the pCtiti0I}€rVii}.Tlé’:iSV_ filed ~i::i thee’

matter before the Assistanji.—-f’§6mjm.issiof1e::_. ..93But’, an

opporimzity of being gven to – the

petiti01″2e1*.i'”‘”ir; eiibfirfission maée at the Bar

by Sri. had an oppostunity of

being ..tOA”€.;h’6:ivp€titi{)I1CI’ before the Assistant

V’ Com-iziissieeger, he iifdiild have placed adequate material

“0fg1’V’:fe,ee=f<:i $.atisfy the Assistant Commissioner that

flue Tahsiidar is incorrect, deserves to be

i3"»-'«4___e::eepte£l,,__i* The Assistant Cemmiseioner has proceeded

and has not eppiied his mine to the facts of the

\J§\v//)

-7-

6. Though the Deputy Commissioner has given an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner

the Deputy Commissioner has passed a

same eaxmoiz be sustained in view. of t21’e”‘fa§:’jt, ‘1V:h.at_ t:%1e””

Deputy C0}Z[}.II1iSSi0f}6’I’ has re1ied:”:.ii13*s’:i;,1’icertao fiéitatiisgi

entries and factuai aspects come to tfie ¢OflC.1LESiOn;w.i’

The said factual aspects Werei.;1otv.bi*ofy1g1it”{o.meE1″io1;ice of

the petitioner at any =!t_)y him or by the

Assistajef”CoI:i,¥nissioner ‘}I’i1e”1′:’eiport of the Tahsiidar is
not even’-served ‘pe7′{iti,oner. These are the sue motto

proeeedingsa”” the Assistant Commissioner

. V. “oased:’:’oii’.fhe.. report. In View of the same, rules

require that the report of the Tahsiidar

shouid lseen served on the petitioner who is the

“–..VVV”e.iffe{ei:eiii’».§e1’so;1. The factual statements made durizig the

of the order by the ifieputy Commissioner could not

i .h-2:i\:’e been opposed by the petitioner as the said facts were

“V not brought to his notice prior to passing of the impugned

order. In View of the same, the order of the Deputy

.. 3 E
Ccmmissionar also cannot be sustained and the same is

Bahia to be quashed.

“F. Since the naatttzr has to be reman£i¢;1: fé.th€

ASSiS¥Z8}f1t Cammissioner far fresh dispose} iI}:v”2*i{3{;()I%{‘x§f~i_Ifi{}€

with iaw, this Court does not wish :0 c0m.I:ie£1t’~9§:r;Vth:i:1–b

on merits of the matter at this st;§ge. If

3.113; abservation on 1nez’its,V.T’t11e same”* mayV»’1;:-.1ff3§u.di<i'$ tirzé" L.

case of either of the parties Cf afresh.

Hence,;’i<e€§§i11fi;v_.0p€;1§ afi§'145€f:i::1*?s« “ta remand the matter to the

Assi$;t:a;::1: C{5IIiI}IiSSi0fi€i’: by setting aside the impugxed

“Gr::;ié”1″s. 9341*; flew of the same, {he following order is made :

” . . “‘Thé’ ‘Vida AImexure–‘A’ dated 22.7.2096 passes?

‘{3}? tifi. éggistani. Commissionar, Chikodi, and the order

;s;2:1e;mnexurexB? dated :é?;*§-,é.3-.”;<.',£', §2:§~§¢<; 9: 59¢ ;s¢y9;::

Cémmissiener, Beigaum, are set aside. 'F136 matter is

remittaci to tha Assistant Commisaaner, Chikadi, for fresh

ciispesal in accordance with Eaw. A1} questicms are kept

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information