High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Satyan vs Deputy Commissioner on 16 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Satyan vs Deputy Commissioner on 16 October, 2009
Author: V.Gopalagowda And B.V.Nagarathna


13*»: ‘shins; mun (3UUR’i’ are i{AI\’NA’i’AKA AT uAr{g3;%.tLi}’:j’c.;§ ‘2,

DATED mas THE 16TH DAY 0? acrofififi; A’

memsmmf –

‘mg 11mm1.;:: MN. JUS’1’£{}ii§”\{.{;f<ff)P}XL}5ix–{:§{):§p§'5§:'; :'«.: 'i
_ ._ .

THE il(}N’i}i..i3l Mg:-;. Ju§:;:.;£§;§«; ::.,_;\_z.r§é;GA§,{ flifgfma
Wm’? A:~*:#1§2*.;i; am

nmwmmn: _

Sm ”

we Lam ;<*;;g;-*Ru»
'.AC2»E[}AfL%{)1}'£'.5E«._YE:3.I2_S_'
regztr rm; 4.53.? " _
314:2) 'BLQGK; eJAYA–N3£GAR
BA.§'€€§i';L{}RE"; ~::~:5"e. §_£??'i 1

. . .Ai~'Pi:}i.hPsE'~£'i'

.A '€335 3.2;: -15; 3:-£3311: mean Slii3'i'i"s', ADV}

L

AA 1_ DE;-*u'i*¥ {.,'i0M£if£l3Si£}Ni£R'

§.3ANCrAi,(}i~f£$ i~i'Ui~22°sL i_)iS"Fi~£1f;fi'
V.V.'i'(}W£;§i€S
mmurex BL{}CI{,
D*R.B.R. AMBEBKAR' R0533
3ANG£3LOf%?E

2 'Ti iii 2"sSSiS'i'AN'l' €_3{)f\é3fU§iS1:Sl{.}f€i3}ix'
R3Mfi§'€A€}RR SUB SIVESIOE
RRMANAGAR

/:

Addi. Gaverjxment Advoc-air: for {£16 rfispandrsizt anti

the records.

4. From the materiai on xwseaard, it is fividfijfit ‘

grant was made on iO.8.19£-52 a11e£__1:£1at fi1§3§M1:#”i;€f)i3;:*..*f’ lagixd tr} 3 &:¥ci1edule Caste and

~._&3<:12E§31~1:ai__.-:–:,:'i'2V?_ii:):=: in the: ismtant ca , iaarned sifiglr:

tjuriTgt=; _w'3i1Qiie:V"'cq§iiside1*i;1g the respec:<1:ive cxyxxtentions crf thé

i£1'.V'V*?§'*i *,F4:3.9*3éiiif€}?, came, ta 3. {fi0i1Ci1iS.it)11 that the

&ss§$mt:{tCbmnfi3sioné1* had taken into oanskieratiafi the

,.'.aA?£~;§s:-*:;:g:-.:.«=; of mcrctardg wit}: regaxti his the: permifision being

' by the State: and thtém was rm dmunmnt piacsd on

" Wf§'tC(§I'z:i and that the dmumenf: Wiizicix was xzxjnfiidfiktvd by the

assisiant C0i}.'£fi:i.i$$i0i3'1€§i' with mgard ta aha said ;:.~er;a:iission

was 3 cap? 0f the ciwumezxi and that evmr: if an oppoxmnitg

*2

was granted £33? the Assistant Commissioner

pefitim1er/ agpeilant, thé (33.36 0f the appflflant _

.5§»._:%s2-vs, €%<1»"75""é«

ii .

= Simona 1:215 aianciatmy £7cq1iiFCH1fii”,*.?.~-11iiiZ{fiI*Sti€2ti(Z3fi

4(2) of the Act has not fatten co1;11v§i;1ieci>_AAx4a%£fii”.f£.§:ié;;:t:–f:<:¥1~.s:;

was 110 valid transfer of {and zmdér thfii pmvisirriis the'1'jS..3v,'~.»I' }.

Act. Uiildfif the ci1'€:u:nsta11x§é§'-$;..V"t§1¢ judge
c011firu1¢=:d the order tcr 'itixfa ()1: tilt?

basis Qf $116 masaning  200?, the writ
petition out eff'    was aiso
disposed -mfg'   aim, the gzfiunés urged
and     as the mas were aissrz

sitllijzagrqfl * '

, 123. ~ 7,.£1:; x:xi1i’ix%x1;_j;i:,Wou1{i be of mlevance to rafar to the

»s:£{e<:~-_isgic;:;A cf apex (301111 in this mm of .5'.L.1€::1po9r* V/5.

:'f…f.'.':l'._V§i'.1"'3T'Vi,J£3'iV5V1.:;Ci%.'_.'_i&j9_ {A114 1981 SC 13o; whemin a simiiar

V . comf£.:1fi6§i "313: the {.§flV€i"IiI1l6I1i did nut afiltsrd any

. VL,.:§3;:~_1_3'<:ess Cif law, it is 110

V answer {Q say that in his partieuiar case due: pmcess cf law

wcruld havé led to the same msuit because £16 had £29

ariéqnate dcffinca uyon the £}fi€:fitS. in ting iiistani case, si.,s:1cc:s

5%

A,/4

it has been estaiziishezzi that them was jm pmtsr p(é1"1113:.é§:~"§io;3

takén either by the vem:i0r[gra11tz=:e or by the

agpefla at in accz31'da:1ce with Smfion 4(i3}""«.3f ;'§.c"i:,..:_ V'

in any way advanced the: case: cnf flhé -in §ii£:w,g:}f ti1é".

fuming mcnrded in the report 1;£'i:g%:1fi

peniiission dated 29.8.1991? u'af:ssfsE;1* <:sf 'bi=':i'V11g a V

faiiricated dOC'§1i}1f':i1t wimtgh as.pc5i;f:'V_1_3.§1'§':"1_:3t béé£i'~x'fi~b' utted by

any r'}Vid€i1Cf:.

(1. -1_ea;3<'*11%:'d judge has rightly

coma id ti3af was violation of the
cofidiiifixg 4(2) of the Act, there: is

ms vaiid 1:£'::.::i$f€:1' 51:: ;'jI1§:"3i".«'£..C,1i1;V'i'§&[l€..",'/6 with 'U316 enactment and

, hex:-ab. the samé"–v§.s_____$2fe.ici far thfi aforesaid reasons. Thé

$3 the pzxmhasei" caunat tixerefssre: get the

"'b¢i':£.afit "bi; pumhase aad thvm*&f0J:e, ififi Asfistant

C0a3."'missi0.1;é:* and ijieputy L1:3;11:*:31'$si ”

;uneE

3%