2 WP1720907
3. SMT. LR. ?RAIE3HAVATHI,
W/O B5'. JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED 37 YEARS,
R/A NO. 201, 2*" CROSS,
DATTATREYA LAYOUT',
BANGALORE - 19.
{By Sn'. N. Hariprasad for Sri. A. 1 T T
TI-HS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER V-AR'r1c:.a;:«:$V'2:é6 8; é::'7 * ,
OF THE CONSITTUTION 01:' INDIA PRAYINGTO QUA.sH~,Au..hIExURE'V.
- A PASSED BY THE HONBLE KAR'P«IA'E'AKA AV?'PE'LLJ';TE7TRIBUNAL
IN APPEAL NO. 856/2004, DT. 6.4.2056 AS_AGA§i*£S_'I' THE ORDERS
OF CONVERSION ORDER 3? THE SPECIAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE mi. 1@.3.2Q04'wDE ANNEXURE --- 1:»
AND E'nc., "
THIS PE'I'I'l'IQ'ni' comifidwzéé; :%o«R'j}»PR::L1«§j§'éaARv HEARING 13'
GROUP, THIS DAf!,"T*§fi«: comm MADE 'rH--:;.EQL;.ow1NG:--
::7b'y claim ownership of
propeItyVvV"-tr}. an :2 acres in Sy. No.46 of
North Taluk under a. sale
Rudrappa on 18.9.2003 and who
H :'4i4'b%.*:V:§:z)nversion of this agricultural land for
use by filing an application before the
.. Cciitnmissioner under the provisions of section 95
,i;E1e.. Land Revenue Act, 1964.
The permission sought for had been objected by
respondents 52 and 3 to this petition, inter alia, contending
. 1. .. .. sér:s?$jtDE1e’;fs–« ..
$3/M
‘before’-dittie ftppeflate Tribunal and the Appellate
Annex.ni’e-«A; the appeal and remanded the matter
_ j;-ff_’o1*- re~exatn3I1afion by the Deputy Commissioner in the
“}i:g’t1t’~of jiflxe objections raised by respondents 2 and 3 to
‘T4~'<1€:.13§eti1:ion. 3/
3 WP17209.(}7
that they akso had purchased parcels of irnmoafzahje
property from the very vendor and the A'
application seeking for permission had sought, t
though property purchased by
property that had been sold i11V.fax(oux;'of,Hti3ese &A f ,
by the common vendor.
3. The Deputy it fit to
examine the 2 and 3 and
passed an order”t11ev”::a1apii{,-ants-pefitioners for
granting xiii ‘V d d It
4. The and 3 being aggrieved by
the order, in appeal No.856 of 2004
of its order dated 6.4.2006 [copy at
“overleoiée(§..siV: their” csjmon and the tribunal has
importance to the objections raised;
respondents to go to the civil court to
. tight, title and interest in the property; that
i the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside
. order of the Deputy Commissioner restored.
4 WP17209.07
5. It is aggrieved by this order mssed by the Appeiiate
Tribunal the present Writ petition by persons 5~s*hoi:”
sought for conversion.
5. Appearing on behalf of ‘
Nandaimmar, learned L’
the objection raised by the 2 the
Deputy Commissioner teizable objection;
that even in terrnsiof. they went:
claiming part of the land
did not any part of sy.
No.46 not have raised any
objection; = Commissioner rightly
‘V was of one part of the land
that Rudrappa in fact expired 3. little
‘ V’ later the site in favour of this respondent in the
that thereafter his son one Nanjundaiah aiso
and it is much subsequent that the petitioners in
t ljjtollliision with the daughter-in-laW of said Rudrappa and
‘tier children have obtained sale deed dated 18.9.2003
5 W!’-‘17209.07
7. It is also pointed out that While the petitionersfiésve
sought for conversion of an extent of 2 acres of M
was converted was only to an extent of 1 .,
and in respect of portions Where
for construction, it has not ;
and therefore the respondents’ any
grievance etc.,.
8. Notice No.2 is
represented {earned counsel who
of this respondent one
Rudrappléthlatd of 4 acres in Sy. No.46 of
Maflathalaallif “forming a layout and this
even when they had not succeeded to the property in Sy.
@/
6 WP17209.07
No.46; that the petitioners though had claimed to
an extent of 2 acres had virtually indicated
the extent of land that they had purchased R
as the seheduie to the entire Sy. jj.tfiat:
of the sale deed of the year and__o’i’der L.
the petitioners were interferlndéu to
this respondent and it the tespondents
to apprise the Deputy objections,
but they hadynotd the tribunal has
rightly setfi by the Deputy
the Deputy Commissioner
to consider by the respondents and
V.others§gsimi1ar1y” and then to pass orders; that the
A’=_ot’der interference in the exercise of writ
court ete.,.
V 9. of the impugned order of the Tribunal only
‘ ‘4″‘Vin<iie.'=Ltesv'that the tribunal has remanded the matter to the
Commissioner for the reason that the Deputy
""..iCoir1missioner had not bestowed his attention to various
objections raised by the second respondent and persons
§/o
7 WP1'7209.07
like the second respondent The Deputy Commissiofier is
bound to examine any objection raised and
awareness to pass a reasoned order after the -« .,
same. If there is a failum on
Commissioner and on noticing' the the ;
aside the order and mmands t§§é'~V.f;1a§ter,<' any
error or illegality in the tribunal. The
matter does not warram §i%I¥i't'ju1isdiction.
Sd/-Q"
Judge