High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri Shivashankar Swamiji … vs Shri Laxman Yallappa Kamble on 4 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shri Shivashankar Swamiji … vs Shri Laxman Yallappa Kamble on 4 March, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
-1..

IN THE HIGH comm" OF KARNATAKAT 

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARW5:3":.:::.   L

DATED THIS THE 4"?" DA? oF%Agx&A*aci4%2:3o9  '

BEFORE =  
Ho:~:'32..E MRJUSTICE Mo;-ééfisH.ANAT*AMAéouDAa
wars" PEFITICN.N§','$253}Z;OQ7;@C/ST)

Between :       '

Shivas1;§§1fi%eir  'h'!xé}1;:;1_'éev 

Agacfi ab:}ut~.5:?2.y€afe:.AA ' _   ' -

R/0 Soumlatfi  ._  

Taluka Raiimgé V ; _ 
Dis1:z*ict_ViE3£:}ga:J.I;:1.    H Petitioner

  $§{':':'3:":'q§a3zakuIr§;éir'*~S~.«'Pam, Srfiiouixsei far

' «Sri Raviraj  Patii, Advocate 3

H V' _ 1.  'féillappa Kamble,

 Agé 'majcr,

 AA Rfo Seundatti village
 .V'¥'z§}uka Raibag,
 Ezfiisétrici Belgaum.

%  f_ ' ~ -2°--}'?he Tahsiidar,

Ragibag Taluk
Raibag,
_ fiismict Beigazlm.



3. The Assistaxsi Cemmissiener,
€3hi1<;:oci.i,
{Dist Bélgaum.

4, E16 Deputy' Cmmissi0m'~:1°,   -
Iliést: Be.1gau3:}:>..   '~ ,. RcspQI;de'21§;§ 

{ By S161 '?;N.Raghupa:h§7 f:>r'$3'§~;fi (1.1%.-gjadhaig  
Fadvoeatc far I'~i'~» I. and Sri. K;L«B.?%<ihyapa_1<:, 'AT 
AGA for 8&2 to 4}   _

This Writ Petition is-fiiedf{inée_1:_ArtincEei}.tj_" Deputy Commissioxmr,
Belgaum, datcgd ;'[i29;..3.,:2S(}'? vidcf--£s1131é§éurc~E confuming thtér
order pafisfiéci "'3the"---.:21s'é--t.,_C:>1iL:r1is3ioner, Chikofii, dated
22.?'.i2GC?6 vé;ie»..fi.;imex11Ize~2?x.' ~  ?

Thizs 'Writ  bean hearé éifké I"€S€I'Vf3€i far
€,>I'€§.€;".I'S 011"'i;?'?;?}.i2I;1*€3'€9'.a::3.d'..'*pron0unc€<i. the Qrrciers an this (iay
{ha 4?? Pviaréi; 2639'; "

'-'-5'1'1?:e '."£3'€§iiii{m€=:§* is tha <3Wr}.6z' {sf the pwpert}-* i3&3ri3"1£

g  395;/3, measu:*i:':g "28 gmitas, sétuateé at

V' V' V.:§oT:2§:Ada:fi.i 'xfiiiaga of Eiafiéag Taiiik. He gar: aha property by

'  's%};{°§.t_:€ 5}? {ha deems sf '{1}: Civié fiourt. 3%: is :13':

§f){}SS£SS§{'3E: 9?" the property by "JiI'"Ei..§6 Of' the saisi

ékcree. T326: {'.E§}iI'i€S am zgzutaieii in his §&V€}i%3"',

/W



- 3 -
According to him, he has improved the land b}-f.«js§j{i1":1'cEir1g

considerafila amount of 2:z1.o11E:y.

2. The Tahsiidar,  Tam,   '

submiffied a report datedV.r'353~.6.520{}'6 to

r1.€2._rf 1110f» the Karrzataka
Scheduled Castes 8svA.VSd}_1:e.d1-11'e.s_   (Prohibition of

"§'raI1$fer of     ufihéreinafter referred to

as me     Eéééd 01:: the said report, the
Assistarit C0:i2I:1§S;é_icr1er:LA"isSued notice. ta the petitioner.

S€ate:Ih.tr1: {Sf r§I3jve£:ti0r:asf ia..re flied by me petitioner t0 the

'  V:1c::'ficé...é Tfiéfiéafier, the impugned order Vida

  passed on 22.7.2006 by the Assistant

Cafirmissietéfir directing 1316 petitioner to restore the Land

  €g1£?o'§_1r-- 5f respofident N811 herein 'und€r Séction 5 0f the

 . «?I_'V€33L--..é*'éAc£. T116 said Grder is confxrmeé by the Deguty

  Qisznmigsiazsar, Belgaum, Vidfi Anr1@xure-"B' dateri

M



,..4.,

29.3.2087. Both the erders are questioned 

petition.

3. The recems nlaimtejrxedfl b3f..ih§:3 "2,:;u;'ifi1f1efi1ies'_' Vbeirf-'vi? "

are made available by the,ie;_.~11":1eti ._G0ve1TaIie1itj Adivoeatee.

for perusai of the Court.  S371  S. Patii,
learned counsel appeefigig e1'1__1;It1e petitioner, Sri
'i'.N.Raghupathy3_ iear:1ed:_C;0uf;ee1  03:1 behalf of

respondent     learned AGA

(): f~StateA perused the nmteria} on

record. –. —

‘ It”e-is azefigtiéévby Sari Jayakumar S. Patil, learned

..S:€,?jf.T§;iL*Z}i’ ::C,eiu’:€Sef_jappearing on behaif of petitioner ‘mat the

ordefs paéetsd by the authorities below are not justified,

“*i£;a7s:13é_1»:;}:: as, they are passed in violatien ef principles of

_ §:1ai:!;.ef5a§ justice. Be 3130 argued 0:1 merits ef the matter.

Fer contra, Sri ‘i’,N.Ragh§,1paihy, learned eeuneel

aggapeariiig 9;} behalf 0%’ reependent No.1 argueci in sueperez

.. 5 –

of tha orciers of the authorities belew. He contenclad that

thare is no dispute that the iands are granted __a1*1d

that the g1’a;m.:.ees are Haxijans. He further

presumption arising under Sectionfii (3) (if théi .

not rebutted by the petiizioxigr. .. §§ii:”,..tE;r:s€

submissions, ha argueri for’:i_&S3:1issa;i.0I’%:11e;’$.=¢1″‘ifLmtition.

Sri K.B.Adhyapa1;, 1ea1:f;3.e;i’ a.{§’p”eaJ:i11gE011 behaif

of the Sate aiso -71 the orders pasfied

by the gaiifi Iéjefidw

53;] As af0:*€a::mr1tidp,_e'<§., the Assistant Cammissioner

has is sued :3.<}t'i::_eV 'f2:o '£f_1{1.'e*~* fietitianer after gettigzg the report

' «..ff<)1;%:j """ "F115 repezrt of the Tahsiidar is dataé

1«¢,'§;2:jg§; peiitioflfir herein has raga statement Gf

O§j€:§ fi{}flS'.2QU6. Thereafter, no 301': of enquiry i3

"'»-'4«___V'-held E§jg__ i,he Assistant Commissioner. Without further

":,1{;~i:§§£:1<n=; Qfld wiikaaui hearing the petifiafiar, {ha arder £3

_;}é:§s$efi as par Ax113;€xure–«?'A' dated 22.17.2806 by the

Assistant Ciammiggiarzer against. the gaetitianer. Tfie ardsr

'S44;

-5-

of the Assistant Commissioner is in vi0Eation*pfé1::;i_p}§:s

of natmai justicte, inasmuch 33, ad, 15€_:zaS€)né;’z’}:i1_¢’

opportuzzity of being heard Mgi’é?€:i1_ tr} <i:i"1¢§_.';:\§:t,jtii5<3V1f1é:r. '4

Ruie 3 (4)(5} 0:" {ha Ka:ma_takaV4"S:ci§1edu1{.§dL,

Scheduied Tribes (Pmmb:r:o§:::%k%%of "'}i'if*z2f1 Sfé§'i" Certain
Lands} Rules, 1979, cf being
hearé shoulc} be givefi It is not in
dispute that objectians in {hie
matter fi;1'%11iSSi0fi€r_ But an
app01*ti;§1itf§v'. 3 -'oraily is not given is the

peiiéianer. In this C€:.:§i:::§§{:.the subnlission made at the B33"

by ;}'ay*ai{{ii:3ai:'v S,«:Pa'r.i} that, had an oppariullitfg cf

3":;iéé.:fd4'VA.g§xfe:": is {he petitioner befcre the A$sis¥;ant

{'ie:xn':nis"éi.:%i1r:rg'f:e wouid hava placeé adequata materiai

-Von ;’Vi”t cf the Tahaiidar is .inC01:’r€<:t, éeservas is 336

-..[&’.;afi:1{‘;e:p :e€i. The Assistant éjfommissicrzer has pmceéidefi

‘%{¢Ta«g:;a;§;r and has not appiieci his mind to the facts; 9f the

{‘§&S€ .

M

6. Though the Daputy CoI1}:}1issio:1e1’A. §1as;AT§i§}éfiV_”$11i”

opportunity of being heard to them gxe-‘rfifltion ‘ 7

the Deputy C30mn1issi0I1er 11.3.3 paé’se€iVa detailgéd :3r€i’:vf:£*;,€f_;e

39.1116 cannot be sustaineci Vt of’VVih’};1t ihé
Deputy Conzmissionef has a mutatien
entries anci faatual the conclusion
The said fact§19:1:’«£aSpe<£:A:s ta tha netice of
the gaetifiarkgr éifiler by him or by the
'IfI"%– éVVVVi§<':p0rt of the Tahsildar is
:10': avegisésaivéd A:-}€.§*§;e§_';3-étitiolaer. These are 'ihé sun motto

p1'ocaaeii;1g$"ifi'iti3§€d ' by the Assistazfi Cammissioner

%).:~3,S eJd €}§ic:.fI'a?;sé1<ia;"s m;)01"¥.. Er; View {if the same, rules

I V fsquira that the repert of thé Tahsildar

shmigéisi .._§;%;¢mi3' bean served on $316: petitiencr who is {he

. 'é:§'fe;c_:@6g"';:;€:'sG§:. Tim factuai siaterfierzts made during the

'C'<:%V:ii§'sfe 0:' the Qfdfif tzy the Deputy' COII1£11iSSiG1E1€I' coulé not

' 'E}:j.v'6: been apposed by {he pefiitiazaar as the said faazrts wsre

A. 1'29: bmughf; to his rmiice §:::'io:* tar passing of tha impugried

,!m

[4/~«/'

-3″

order. In View of the same, the order 0f~~–*;}1c

Comxnissianer also cannot be sustained..31j_&._fh e:’ same -.i.s'”V.__

iiabie to be: quashed.

7. Since the mazzegiijas :5″ “to me’
Assistant C0n1:11issiQ§::§1′ for Eli ‘ ;3.cc0rdance
with law, this Court ;:i{)¥:a§$’ Vt=§Ii:%:1:1 ‘V:«t c::.v£:(;§_m:11eI:£ amzthizlg
on merits of: this Cour: makes
may obseIf;éit;§g}1:gT””é)f;__ may prejuéice the
case 91” time of hearing afresh.

to be urged by bath the

parties, this Coxgiit Apréférs to remanci the matter to the

Qomniissibiier by setting aside the ixnpugzed

,__Q:*dé:’$.:::”4Ig: ‘:?i:?:3¥*_j.of the aame, the fallowing Carder is made :

éiffiier Vida Axmexuzns-“A’ dated 22.?.i2006 §as$eé

K ‘fikge Qissistant Ciommissioner, Chikodi, and U216: order

– }§r131exure«”B’ dated 29.3.2007′ passed by the Qeputy

” C(}I’I1II1iSSiOI}€I”, Beigaum, are set aside. The matter is

renzitteé to the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi, for fresh

X/V//Q?