IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED 'mus THE 20th DAY or AUGUST 2009
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE V.GOPALA "
AND
THE I-ION'BLE DR.JUsTIcET'1;,BHAKfrI1AvA1*s,ai,A "
y___RI'r APPEAL No.162"[2...V()f)9{SCV--fS'%Tu)j
B EN: V. _ _ ..
1 sm' PA.RVA'I'HAMMA
MAJOR _.
WIFE OF K NARAYANAPPA. 4. -
R/AT BIDAf?A'I-IALLIV-, ~ B1nA1~§A_1~mLL3_ 14:031.:
BANGALoR1£_.sofiUi:fH TALUVKJ] " "
2 _
WIFE 0:35' KRAMALAH = _ .. -
MAJOR, 'R/AT BIDAMHAI, _ I" .. _
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI ' .
BANGALORE SOUTH ._TA§,UI-Z" APPELLANTS
_~ '5;,(B3 z" 3:3 N.S¥sm\:qA¥ GOWDA, ADV.)
SPECLAL 1:>Ei>T.viY COMMISSINER
_ BAN'GAL.OI{"<E ~D1sTRIc*r
. _ BANGALQRE
.: -:2 .THE"ASSiSTANT COMMISSIONER
" E5A],\_TGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
. BANGALORE
3 SR1 APPANNA
SON OF GANGAPPA
MAJOR
R/ OF BYATARAYANAPURA VILLAGE
YESHVVANTHPUR HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
4 LAKSHMAMMA
WIFE OF APPANNA
MAJOR
R/OF BYATARAYANAPURA VELLAGE '
YESHWANTHPURHOBLI A
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK ' ._ V
[By Sri N SHANKARANARAYANA ADV.FOR_R3 ea};
SM'1".ASH_A M.KUMARc;_IR1MA'm; ;AfoV;--1§'0R R1 5: R2)
WRIT APPEAL FILED U/ski HIGH COURT
ACT PRAYING TO ssr ASIDE oReER"'PAss,E.D IN THE WRIT
PETETION No.41841/2002' DATED 30-a-2_Qe:s;.V_ - ~
THIS WA 15 ON--fFQRV._f'R*€LIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, GOPALA GOWI)A',~- VDELIVERED jI*H1«: _FOLLOWING:--
The c0r1?ee{ness"ef of the learned Single Judge
dated 3O».43'.2--€)O8 in WI5 41841/02 (SC/ST) is questioned. in
this appgdaz facts and legal contentions and
prayedt'()_VseE:e,side""i:he order of the learned Single Judge
e1"der dated 4.2.1999 passed by Respondent
2. There is no need for us to refer to the facts in this
Judgment as the learned Single Judge has
referred the same in the order impugned in this ap’pebirVV” ~
3. The ground of attack of the ‘ini’pugrl~ed\.
appeal with reference to SeC.4c(2}: of the is Ac:
No.2/ 79 is enacted solely for the ‘aside the
alienation made by the ‘grantees the terms
of the grant. In other worckggvithge of the
legislature was thattI;e:l1§1iei1ai’ion grantees due
to their poverty ‘exploitation by the upper
castes was a law. It was not the
intention of tiled’ the grantees should be
pennanently be alienating the granted lands
intention of the Legislature that the
purpos’e.s*-of satisfied if the grantee retained the
it for a”‘spe._eiIietl number of years. Viewed from this angle,
subvrnitted that the lands in respect of which the
‘7.,”.prescribed”period of non–alienation had expired can never be
subject to the purview of Act 2/79. This aspect of the
V
states that it was perfectly permissible for the Registering
Officer to permit registration of documents when the _tra’ns_fers
were in accordance with the terms of the
submitted that in the Eight of this clear wordirigloikéeclilfi the K V’
Act, the learned Single Judge has
conclusion that Sec.4(2) of the Nqi3c_a”;i1s*; ~R°cIma” V L’
Naika and another (2008 AIR 312) .w’aa.,.an«}embargo
on the alieriations rnade afterithe intoforce.
5. Further it bingle Judge has
failed to notice ‘and inequality which
would t#1:1é.:j,’4v’¢_1_’lie1_’1Vations made before 1979
after expiry was over, were Valid,
while theéivery ytrhich were sold after the 1979
submitted that once the granted lands
vestsL’freeiylai’id~v.absoii1tely with the grantee, the State cannot
a law takes away a vested right in a citizen. This
l ‘ofit_he’Vrriatter has not been appreciated by the learned
it’ ‘ — urige linllthje proper manner.
hm
6. In View of the above, he has contended that the
learned Single Judge While answering the contentious.
by recording findings and reasons rejecting
is bad in law, as the same is in contravention’of~.the°o4bjeCt it
and intentrnent of the PTCL Act. Therefore’;
question of law would arise._V.”in_ this case “2regarding”‘
constitutional Validity of Se_c..4(2) A’ct-.puV§tting an
embargo upon the grantees’ and ST and
depressed class to alienate the Act has
come into force non–a1ienation period
incorporatedginev Ther’efore, he submits that
impugned order Single Judge is liable
to be set asidelliarid relief as prayed in the writ
E V’ A . . . . . .. N
to the abovesaid legal contentions
byi'”””the..l:le;{rned counsel for the appellant, we have
t .erexaVn*1ined the provisions of Secs.4(2)6 and 8 of the
Aetfwith reference to the findings and reasons recorded
. . at paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the impugned order with a View
lit/~
‘V.
hem as provided under Article 14 and 395′) of the Constitution
of India.
9. Learned Single Judge having
interpretation made to See.4(2) of the Act”:
the petition urged by the learned _eounsel5by
and cogent reasons. We are in resijeeiful agreernentjwith the
View taken by the learned’ ‘:S_.’i’ngleé_x do not find any
good reason whatsoever order of the
learned Single Judg¢;”jg:;orr_i* g
10. Appeal t