High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Kadaramma vs Deputy Commissioner Chitradurga … on 20 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Kadaramma vs Deputy Commissioner Chitradurga … on 20 November, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
....3_....

IN THE HIGH caurer 012' K'AiE~2N'ATAKA AT BANG-A1.G:§E

1')A'I'l££') 'THIS THE 20TH DAY 01:' NOVEM4}E§--E§{,:'iii}(f)é§' 

THE HON'13I..E' M;-2.JUsT:€:E J;é§Wi  _

wxerr PE'l'ITI{)N N(5.'3 %}481 {)§?..ga06;_s'{:i§S'fl 
BETWEEN : ' M " '
1 Smt KADAR*'AMiviA  "  '

 W./_c'>*  THHvIMAPl?A.. 
 AGE"me.goLrr'60%Y13ARs
1--.AGRl'C§U'LTIJRIVST__BY PROFESSION
R10 %RENu§mPuRA;" TALAK HOBLI
CHE3_VLLAK.F3f<AE"TALUK,
~   cHI'm.ADURG?A DIS'I'RIC'l'.

%   

 T  LATE TZHIMMAPPA
' "~A'€3ED-ABOUT 21 YEARS
AGRECULTURIST BY PROFESSION
 ..__Rj{}"'RENUKAPURA, TALAK HOBLI
H c_HELLA1mRE TALUK,
"€3HI'FRADURGA DISTRICT.

T GOPALA

S /' O LATE 'I'HiMMAPPA

AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION

R] O RENUKAPURA, TALAK HOBLI
CHELLAKERE TALUK,

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.  PETITIONERS

0%:



('By Sri : B M' SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND :

1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHITRADURGA OISTIQIOTV _
CHITRADURGA. ' O

2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIO NEi€--... 
CI~i1'FRADURGASU:B'£)I\/ISI()iV' ,   
CI--H'1'RAQI.}'RGA. '   

3 CHOWDAPPl{_"'~-.. ' _  , 
S/O NINGAPPAO  =     
SAGARAPET, BASAVA1\?AF'ATE'$:5; _ 
OHANNAOIRI  ' « 

   RESPONDENTS

(By ADVOCATE, FOR R~3,
Sm§:.M.C;-NACrA,SHREE, HCGP, FOR R» 1 & R-2)

. . . . . ***

WRIT PETFFION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

fiz2522*?OO[OF THE COl\IS’I’ITUTION’ OF’ INDIA PRAYING
. TQ Q¥.}_’A_SH”THE ORDERS PASSED BY R~2 IN CASE
*NO.sOPrL:OOLK:1:o2~o3 DATED 5.11.2003 PRODUCED

As ANN’E;XURE~B TO THE WRYI’ PETITION AND ORDER
PASSED BY R-1, IN CASE) NO.SCPT’L:(A):48/03-O4

% ‘A DATED 28.6.2006 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C TO
‘– – WRIT’ PEETITION.

THIS PEFFTION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS

DAY, THE COURE’ MADE THE F’OLLOWING:-

\fl/Lr

…..3….,

GREEK

Land bearing Sy.No.3{)/6 mmsttxjitg.

situated at Basapum Viklage,

Taluk, Chitradmrga Disu*iet,_ Wa§”–¢t’aflt€d Vfavoi4t19′”of L»

Sri Obaiah in the year eold in V

favour of Thippaiah’ sold
the land in the;/ear jfifimmappa, the

husband of oetietioger ” -fatlfler of petitioner

_ Nos.2’V #tV3t;~ oeing initiated, the Qua

responttenteAssiStémt”*~C’;o!I;iInissioner by virtue of the

iInpt1g;r;ed4″4or.tie1*Vt1ateti ‘5~11-2003 vide Annexure–B set

. V. aside the “sale for festoration of the lands

of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes

8t “.5-Behgéciuietit Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain

and on appeal by the petitioners herein. the

A’ _V1’s’t– respondent-£)eputy Commissioner rejected the same

the order dated 28-6-2006 vicle Annexure—C. Hence,

this petition.

WW

.. 4 ..

2. Sri B.M.Siddappa, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners contends that the reliamzte

the Assistant Commissioner on the gant

2443-» 1951 is erroneous. Therefore,’ « tlie of 1

Rule 43 of Mysore Land

consequently being ennneoiisi. the ofder is

liable to be set asiq\Ei:–‘…V_ We 31′ ant

order dated 10- 1 L 1962’-itloi contrary. He

tllerefofe ” t;’iei’V’Assistant Commissioner
faile€ixi’to -ta}:e_ 1 “eo11siderafion the order of gaunt

su¥;m1itteoi:ii”” fietitioners before the Assistant

– ACo~1Vn’1ni’ssioner. The Assistant Commissioner has also

to the said. land purchased by the

Iiaetiitioztezifi has failed to appiy his mind or to give a

with regard to the said want.

” 3. i have heard the learned counsel for the

ijoetitioners and Sri J.Ka;rthikeyan, learned counsel for

respondent No.3.

VA»

…5…

4. Irrespective of the findings recorded the

Assistant Commissioner, the order clearly . 1:hVe

non-application of mind so far as the

furnished by the petitioners

refers to the certificate of nciate.;i_’v_; o1o–‘s1i.{“19e2–

produced by the petiuoners,s«so.i§ut do.essgot%%fi¢o%s”fmd:ngk
on the salne and has
been ganted on VAA-‘.j’V_~:;I’E1erefore, I1€)H-

consfztIei’stfioi1_vo’fé ceftificate itself would lead to
the be interfered with. It would

fl1e:P-fiibre to set aside the same by

‘ V’ – «directing ‘the Commissioner to reconsider the

View of the documents of mam etc,

before him.

AA In View of the erroneous order being passed by

fihe Assistant Commissioner the consequential order in

“appeal also Woukd not stand to scrutiny and the same is

liable to 1% set aside.

W5r”‘”

-5…

6. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the foiiorfiglg

order: ~

1) The erder passed by: ”

Assistant Commissioner ditfidgfl

Annexu3ne–B and the order 2845~’£’;{3Q6VV .:3vi<v:%1e '

Annexure–C passed by respoijriergii-Deputy

Commissioner are hereby.qitashsé';-Vff" .. _

2} back to the Assistant
Commissioner' to reconsider the matter

afresh in accordance with law with

~. A_ r€f£€i'7€I1§i6 to thé"o?:sczvations made herein.

' " _ V'!rit'_ps:tit,ion is disposed off.

Sd/~
Judge

rsk