-1-
IN THE HIGH count 01-' KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS THE 1 ITH DAY 0;? JULY;*IféG0§3'A*~::: ? _% Y
BEFORE V
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE«~.RA_?v§ 'MGHAN]1QTEf)_l:)Yj'l %
WRIT PETI'1'ION__ No. 95_§%¥..]':;.'€)u(')8 .($£§/ §IT)_Vf%
SM'I'JAYAMMA.=*.._
w/0 BETTANAYAIQ" . A
AGED 45 YE-AR'S;~V'"''''''--»._ , I
R/AT GoHALIII"m_..LAGE;. ._
TA:,UI<Ia'U'I~Is1;'I2, 'f --
MYSORE I)_IS'I'R2.'C'.If_.
-- I g ...PETI'I'l()NER
(By Sri : c;' B_vS2v;ASIfIé'*:, )
I ~ ..V'rIeII5;.II3§';1:=11TY COMMISSIONER
§»!TfE€aORE.l)~iS'I'RICF
g 2 THE ASSISFANT COMMISSIONER
HUNSUR SUB DIVISION, HUNSUR,
' " MYSORE DISTRICT.
SR1 NAGARAJ snow
S] O HANUMA BHOVI,
MAJOR, R] AT HANUMANTHAPURA,
TALUK HUNSUR,
MYSORE DISTRICI'.
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : R B VENKATARAMANA, HCGP FOR R1 Gr. 2 )
M
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF’ THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING.~.__’I’O
QUASH THE ORDER DT. 8.1.2008 PASSED BY THE7,_1’$
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEX–A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING on FOR PR–§i):LII«lIIIV’I§IR’I?.’
HEARING (B-GROUP) THIS DAY, THE couRr.,MAD-E,:*THI§’-«
FOLLOWING:
93.3% V _ % V _ .
The petitionar having sakoaeeaoo dam
22.7.2003 2 acres 20 i:.:I”€-‘a3r:,._1A$Io,VV:’52O/3 of
Gohalli, Hunsur taluk, one Mmamma,
Who was gI’aIIt€d”i’hf3 with tho
condition; of :91 period of 15 years, when
visited with an noiioo of Assistant Commissioner, in
_ exexggfggsie of under Section of The Kamataka
and Schcdulcd Tribes (Prohibition of
Lands) Act, 1973, for short the Act,
the order dated 4.11.2006 Annexure-B
tithe transaction of sale as null and void and hit by
I ;£he.§I:tIovisions of the Act, which was carried in appeal before
Deputy Commissioner, was confirmed by order dated
8. 1.2008 Annexure-A. Hence: this Writ petition.
I
.3-
2. indisputably, the sale transaction V”
22.7.2003 after the Act came into force M V’ ‘
perm1s’ sion of the Government *7of
Section 4 of the Act. Though the
the sale as being valid in the nghtgfiitxae
by the older dated 15.7.v2€)xO3 of the it
was not shown that * the rcqilisite
jurisdiction to We :e~tesuc31’p¢1~5;a§s;9;;ug:a¢§ the Act.
3. T§:§e that permission as
requireii of Secfion 4 of the Act is to be
ganted “end that the State has not
deieggtted thie {fie Tahsildar. In that View of the
Hire be taken to the reasons, findings
2 arrived at by the Asst. Commissioner as
Welles the Commiesioner in their respective orders
V ieapughefii.
4. Before parting with this case, the State Govt. needs
be cautioned over the manner in which its Oficers
discharge their statutory duties, more appmpfiam
-5-
The writ petition is dismissed. The State is di:1;;a;¢d[$£oT:
initiate discipiinaxy proceedings and impose puma.’ « ”
the Ofiicer who passed the order:’JAn!1ex’m’je–(j,$,'” tifige
petitioners were to seek permission {if A’ if
State of Karnataka, to prosect3V1tt:..:;fi:¢ “C1r1′:ief
Secmtmy is dixected to jpass ordefs..’such répmsfifitafion,
ifany, without any deiay. VA ”
Ln.