High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri A V Paily vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri A V Paily vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2009
Author: H N Das
1

IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA, sANsALom3:%[jJ@

DATED THIS THE 26*" DAY or AUGUST 2q9e%  " 

BEFORE

THE HC}N'BLE MRJUSTICE H,N;{NA¢A'ma+AN' 

WRIT P§TmoN NQ,I;14'3_65/4_?'e0:9'{KL_&}_;§;i(}_.. °
.8;   A V%  
wan P§"l'ITIO¥\I NQ_:14466~V6£'»120G9f.Kf!;B»'LG}:§

 

BETWEEN:-

1 SRIAVPAILY, _  
s/o VARKEY,r    
AGE: 66 Y,EAR$ .'.'  g  

2 skin b'w':!-v§§§g_L'.'_> ' '.:::' .  
AGE: rs»4%1v.¢.A9;s%.    _ 
S/QCAF'A_l'JLQSE."v. M

 A 3. _   P VVSAMUEIQ' "
 A ~._AGE:.3aYEARS.
 A Js;<3% %c:_A%% PAUQGSE.

  4.  SR1 c'?'%'§<iA%Hsws,
Aces; 45 

  AV ALL ARE Rm GURUPURA VILLAGE,
 A w<:<AvAL:..z VILLAGE,
 'maxxaae TA:.u;E"rmon:2R.s

 "(SY $ri. A M RUDRESH, Adv.,

FOR Sri: K MANJUNATHA RAG 8!-§C¥NSLE, Ad\f.,)



n
«U

W' 3"
[2
F7

THE $TATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARK,

REVEMUE DEPARTMENT,  _
VIKAASA SOUQHA,  
Dr.B.R.A¥'v'¥B¥-iEDKAR VEEDHT,.._ V'
BANGALORE - 560 901.  "

2 ms DEPUTY c0MMIss:oN£R,A  
CHICKMAGALORE DI,STRICT_,_. ; 
CHICKMAGALORE.   _  % 

    ""~""----;;RESPQNDENTS

(BY 3:1: R 3  $::~g:<;H§ iéscsp)

THISiévazéfgPE*£*:imN«kA%z;1Eo"L:;~4osR ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF T;e;E:c;x3:\:s1*mrr1o:»aT_:a:= INDIA PRAYING TO QEJASH
THE annex '-DATE_£i' ..j:.1.9;'a1'."2€1"09 VIDE ANNEXURE W R
PAS$!-ED BY 7'*:41;El%2%"D'RE-:::A_m§:Lg3Er¢T,

Tsfzxs *avaz*r"Pef1j:AoN camms SN FOR FRELEMINARY

HEARIM; ;:%;s; 'Bf mow THIS SAY, THE mum' MADE 'me

ORBER

The subject matter 0? this writ petition i 3 acr%@5

 %%g%£:5f%t%;5M#Mk%i%n 5mo.1 ef surupara wage, Lakkavaiii Hobii,  v":§/E

K}./'



and Sréjttan in the year 1957 with a condition 

must bring tha granted Eand under" cultivation 

yea rs time from the date of taking ;3essess%on.  "'i'?j'4'e':%*;2a fe{'.' §§  

on record discicses that m the year i'958 fi:%ie 'sa§'u:§aI:EVV 

was issued in favour of the petiii'§§_V:r1'e.:js. For_th§ fi.fS€._;ti'vm.e*':in

..the year 2001, the respgndentAs..._§§j*s§és::1;eci t'im._sp}5t and

found that the iand in q"5:zé'st%cis'n__f§éA§;1§'*§f§'§g:fi "brought urzeier
cufizivation and thesjeftgre f:o'%V'$ri».§:ia§;i'e:jL..g;!f.V;co.5(§i'tions of grant
the grant ~§"¥'E'3'é-é: :Ejg-">Z"'§£i€.G!3f"'é§f'-fhé"UF§Q¥%'ia§ grantees came to
be canceliéé "a{_ide 6E:§'e%  26.06,2GO1. Aggrieved by

this erde? ox?'-iglanaefifiafiuwli=5? grant, the petitieners fiied

:_.4-"a:.§v peai§zTé£:}§ssi0ner arsé remanéeé the matter f9?" fresh déspesaé

 accerdance with iaw. After remafié; the seccrzd

respandent again gagged ihig impugraed §F'§§§" at:

;*"**~§»~;:,-»*"'z_}'x.



:19.{11.2@09 setting aside the grant made in  "

ariginai grantees. fiance this writ petijtidn'.*~«. A 

2. Heard arguments on.¥ba_;_th th5e s§de anfi 'Vpigtésségd

the entire writ papers.

3. it is necessary4'tub,'nétirfié;:'th_§' §§*.&V"'igici dawn by
this Court in tE1e_.:,:as: e'---pef  ";aev§d others -v--~s
State of Kamatéké;jré§:'€é3i€éd':.ij§'tiii~§S'€§{i£E) Kar.L.3., 3e: ht-aid:

 ".t&g?§%éfz[€s2{it§g,f9«§f?e«§::§;:t of the fands 5!} question
was iisade. if: f3ii£%'§Ir_'Tcf__[tS:e:pezizfiorzerfi in {he year

2962, '§'}2e_:s:0cé§dI§3gS» cancefiatiea of fhé gram':
arg§;:"ié" is:§€;3£ez:*.,  $5 {he year 2992, Except the

  33s*ife:1'i§<:a§"~«z;§3" t!:e"§f3:"éE were ifiitfateé 5?: the year

' , §'99f.a?;._V'Ex§e:;:;f£ the asserz§o;2 made in ma r €3I?€'?i?i3_Ié"{if'Q§'a%'A-7.1:. ,

of the grazfst within a reasonable' }ée:'i:'_>of from  V  L.
date of the grant, The proceedings azfé firitiérred _;f"a:"   

sanceiiation 91' the grant afzef 36  j:'.'¢fé;".*S from?  
date of {he gram'. Since {he ra.$:t5%3ndefit9--«£;éve:'fai}é.§ 
£0 ifiitiate acfien witfgin a r,ea§§';naB£e pe§"i<:«:i._ 
flfdéf fmpnzzgned ,£}aF5S!.*3'::7{ §}Ef fife r§s§o9_déf:§ Canceiiing

the gram' is Mega}.  'pd§a='é3r'V c¢z?feffe§i'_'_.cn the
respondent to _ca{:ce! :£'I}é"  vfbiaiibn of the

terms 9:’ the%_§:ré;;%2»£’_§s _k.4.,>g::*.ire’a! 12;,-5 ::e’e>ee;:ised within

3 reasanabie ‘/ ” ‘

4. ‘=§n” the jthis not in dispute that the

E35365 E23 qu€st§;5nv §2§:e:~iré’~.v_:g’r«:§}1ted in the year 3952? and

_..$V3guva§é5’«ch}€$V’was §é;éue:.d…m the year 1958. Petitioners N62

fa-14 V:g5:;:’cLr:;avsec¥;=é:”gorflon of the lands 3:1 question from the

V’erigism”–gra.f2t§%es §’Ei’ the year 1986. From the materiai on

regard, ‘uni; ;s§’ dj:é<;:.£osw that there are fruit yieidmg trees and

"&;'§-',_arv§d rosewaoci trees. The mzpert of {the Revenue

I–::Ts:pé;;té'r9 discloses that the petitieners are £9 gessession of

t!§:VVe"V'E:ar:ds in questien. The revenue records fike RTC

éctracts éiscloses the existersca sf fruit yielding trees and

$9"

vaiuabie rosewood ané B.T. trees. It is the case
petitioners that they and their vendors have
vaiuabie trees on the iand in question. The fact~:efi.A4.:ej><¥s:'ée:nir;e 3 i
of these trees is not in dispute. The
reependent in the impugned wd-er V
rsaturai growth and not grown net fit
supported by any mater¥e;i…_"1¢nA iaesex of@

'~'VClC

C.c::<.–»»..\A" C' 3;

5} : 331151 in’?

years, the canceliatien of gAre.n:t ‘by’ the :~:+é’cdfiVdV—respondent is
arbitrary exerciseiiyof:;1;3e*i:.;e§’–.i Wiithiri A.a’réa*scnab|e time, the
respondents have tare:-;erc’ise_VV”‘th_’ei’r power in order te Eake

away the vaiuabie Vrigizts of: the petzttoeer if”! emrrzevabie (H’~.~’DJ

:_.4-;3reper€::y§;:. jfi2e_refe%e,«..£_¥3;ev impugned erder is Eiabie to be

§Ba9hee._a'<"i

"#e':i"ti1se"re–_esf:$es stated above, the fe£iew§eg:~
A» "W » eaeea

i 3} ii fiéhe writ petitiere is aiiewed.

‘Vise imeugneé ereer passed es; the seeeee

resporgeent =~ Geeety Commissioner,

Chéckmagaiore District, Ch§:kmagia.¥4fo7§’a:’*~§a«t¢d_ ‘

19.01.2909 at Annexure R

Oréered accordingfyg

C???’