High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.K.Rajendran vs Smt.Venkatamma on 2 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.Rajendran vs Smt.Venkatamma on 2 November, 2009
Author: V.Gopalagowda And B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated: 2nd day of November, 2009

Present

HON'BLE MLJUSTICE V.GOPALA GO\__?*.g*I";A    _

And

HoN'eLE Mrs.JUST1CE Egv.  ', 

WRIT APPEAL Noe,355o)2_oe9 (sc~sffrg% ° 'L; 

Between:

Sri.K.Rajendran,

Aged about 56 years,    ;
S/0.Late V.KrishnanA.'  '
Residing at No.59,    V     :

Banga;ore-?§60_    e ....APPELLANT

(Ey_S1*i.Vistifiu  Adv. for
_ 3;\/I/Nanaiah-,_8t'Nana.iah Assts. Advs.)

 Smt,Venka=tan'1ma,
KV/'e.ePutta§)p.si', ,_ " 
 ab0i1t"_6bj-

w.A is filed us,/s.4 of-the tzamgtactipalgh Court Act

against the order dated 1 11--_8--2.0.09'-palssed  Writ Petition No.
1621772008. '  ~ 5  .«  

This  dirstating judgment before the
Court this day, -Gopaia_ijGowp£ia4...~J dictated the fo1lowing:--

-giflbGMENT
  Tkidcorrectness 'oftlle order dated 1 1-8-2009 passed by

the.'=-'Judge dismissing the Writ petition and

 of the respondents No.3 and 4 holding

sale acre land of Dornmasandra village by the

grantee and his legal representatives is hit by

sub-section (2) of Section 4 of Karnataka Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes [Prohibition of Transfer of

Lands) Act, 1978, hereinafter called as tie’

questioned in this writ appeal urging VE[I”i0E1S grounds.

2. According to the appeiiant, perniissii-on’

land was granted by the d_:the:V}ReVenue
Department of the State “‘;’:iySA.A:order No. RD 792
LGB 2004 dated 2:2g8–200a,v:SttfhieheagyaaeVpfigadtiressed to the
Special Deputy Bangalore,
copy of Whichis to the writ petition.

But he .9+?3–2005 itself, prior to grant
of the allegedm the sale deed was
registered§4on’~ 30. at wide ANK- 1–O8916~2005–O6 CDM

‘thedierox copy of the registered sale deed it is

mentioned’ that:-.IV)A’oeputy Commissioner granted permission

dfyictegiettef NeV..RDdS792 LGB 2004 dated 29.06.2005 hence the

has ordered to register the document. The

\V

above said statement of the Su’o–Registrar is contradictory to

the pleading of the appellant.

3. Learned Addl.GovernInent Advocate

produce the original file of the State (}_overnment’_’relation ” .

the order granting permission in fav-ourf”‘of’ the Ap’pel1lTa,ntf’f1tJo

purchase the land in question fr_o’t-n.’ the”orig5,nal granwtee and» ‘

his LRs. On instructions,’ frorr1_…t:he_ “Revenue:..’gDe§part1nent
Officer of the State Governtnhent atlbmitted that the
said government ord:e1f._of favour of the
appellant to the land in
question, it grant of 20 acres alternate
land to the Therefore, we directed him
tofile an ofvthle___HSecretary to the Revenue Department

of’t1hev:VS–tate. Qoveriarnent. Accordingly, the Affidavit of Deputy

lit-today. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit

jalpareVextractedtphereunder for the purpose of appreciating rival

urged on behalf of the parties»

\\\x/

“3. I further submit that the Government
letter bearing Reference No.RD 792 LGB 200-it
dated 22.8.2005 pertains to a matter relating
request of grant of 20 acres alternative 5
Defence Department, Government of India,.~A4’vvhich”i.”
does not pertain to the grant of pennissiiorurto ._
alienate the land in dispute beI”‘ore. this I7:Ion”b1e ..
Court, under the provisions of the L .0
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled ” Tribes” ”
[Prohibition of Transfer of -Certain “Lan:is’}
3973 . q

4. I further submit that the t”}overnrr’1’ent of
Karnataka as per its -letter;Nc;.RD..685~LGB 2005,
dated 14.11.2005 was 0–vpleas.e0d.A’_’=.Vt’o grant
permission to a1ienate–th.e=ian_d, in”disp1;£te before
this I-Ion’b_1e=._ “_’COi.:£I’t . of one
Shri.K.C.Rajan 5j’Subject’ _ to__.. certain” conditions
under SectioI;”4s[‘2]”of the ~Again I submit
that, the=~_ ‘”S’pecia1 V ‘T)ep__1,1VtyV Commissioner.
Bangalore; — .. as official Memorandum
bearing ._ — ‘N’o.P’i’CL:’CR:’6E/20052006 dated
3.12.20-05-has– iss1:ie_d’nee.ded further orders.”

:4″ ~.

swornvv–statement of the Deputy Secretary of

theRevenue=Dep’art1ner1t it is clear that Annexure–C produced

the not a genuine document but it is a

-4%_D.ftictiti,ous 1 concocted document for the purpose of this

4’~-.vcase-.x_ P_er”mission to alienate the land in question is granted

0 ‘v:..i.n«uFiie_.No. RD 685 LGB 2005 on 14~11–2oo5, in favour of one

\vt/

custody and he shall produce the same in criminal

proceedings as and when it is required.


.eSd/+"eZ:e:§;éf'
 JUDGE'%%$M§7

MP/ck      é