Smt Siddamma W/O Late Mallaiah vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 19 June, 2008

IN THE HIGH Conn? 01? KARNATAKA,  T _:     

DATED THIS THE 19TH DA'? 20:58»  '  7

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE"  Rsaramr

wmr PE'I'I'I'ION   053006 {sc--s'r1

1 SMT. S_IDI3AIi.§_M_A,'' _;  "    '
W/O L;'&'I'E:'M,AI.Lf£§A'}i; '= A *
R/A ARw;:tsAN"g:)RA'1aLLAGE,
THYAMAGGi~ID_LU _I~i'QB"L.I ' -
NELAMANG.AL;Af 'I'.AL1;K.,, 
13*LOR_E RURAL 'I31:-:7."--- 

2  NA§:;gRATHNA,

W/QV LE1_\¥GANNA,~------« *

 'A ._ A_:A' é§5_YRS.

'3 '$1 0 LA*t';E.:vmLLA:AH,
'-A/Ag-'+2.YRS.

"  SR1-$iaxvAPRAKAsH,

 " "S/0 LATE MALLAIAH,
- __A;A 40 YRS.

%    SMT. SOWBHAGYAMMA,

W/0 NAGARAJA,
A/A 33 YRS.

PETITIONERS No.2 TC) 5 ARE R/A KESTI-IUR
VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND
xaxsmrcr. ) MK



ifiij



SR1 JAGADISH,
s/0 LATE MALLAIAH,   A 
A/A 36 YRS,  
R/A ARIVESANDRA VILLAGE, '

THYAMAGONDLU HoBL1,--  
NELAMANGALA TQ,  ' _ '-
BANGALORE RURAL DIST-RICF. "_

SMT. RENUKAMMIX,"  '-

w/o REVANNA, '-

A/A 34 YRS; _ "   .  .

R /A THIGA:;,A_RAPAI_LYA v1LLAcI~--E,~~ 

PEENYA II4S1;5_GE, _BAf~I_GALOfRE. .  PETITIONERS

(Ry M/s;'L(;§*1;;!I.R;*Ii;£I:I§IVVADV. )

AND :

sTATé:"Q%RvvRARNATARA,
gm' ITS SEQREVFARY,

" "REVENUE ['}EPAR"I'MEN'I',

' .  'I .  M.;<5.fR:II~I,pING, BANGALORE.

  1VTIII%;"«I§ERU%I5Y COMMISSIONER,
"-BANGALCAIRE RURAL DISTRICT,

A »...4_'3AR<3A1'IoRE-09.

Tfiv¥:'4A'*ASSIS'TANT COMMISSIONER,

" =  DODDABALLAPURA SUB--DIVISION,
V.  "BANGALORE-O9.

SR1 DODDAMARAIAH,
s/0 VENKATAPPA,
A/A80 YRS,

R/A W-4'?9, A D COLONY,
THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,



4

2. The petition is not maintainable  f¢:}r..

foilowing two reasons - (I) that the pefifionefs  H

suffered an order of the Asst. Comiiiiseiqner  

of jurisdiction under Sec.4 at the  °

Castes and Scheduled T1'ibes;v--v::(I--'1fohi}vf:aitieIx'V. tar 
bf Certain Lands) Act,  tfer'..t.I1e   order
dated 15.9.2003}  of the
land in questiexiitfiy   ..9Tf3I1tfeya11ce dated
20.1.1975     restoration
of the  tthe'  did not question
that order  in  See.5A 01' the Act and

as a eo,nsecii1etice, efder has become final and

 2 (2)  agfipeal before the Deputy

 preferred by the 4th respondnet

  Doddamamiaiit calling in question the order dated

 "'--._VVI5,9,2()"(}3: Annexure C ef the Asst. Commissioner in so

 'aseitt relates to the direction to restore the land to

  ' utheg State and not to 4* respondent which when

” ” éllowed by order dated 5* Jt.u1e,2O06 Armexure Q, the

petitioners cannot be said to be ..aggt’1-. ‘A ‘V

erder.

In the circumstanges, fiié-fi?I”if”‘pf:titi{5r1’=iS~”§;Vit1’10ut

merit and is accord1’11gly¥’i*t:jt:(§ts:§ii.::’