11: um mam COURT or xmnA'r.4u«m arr
DATED nus ms. 2018 may or fiovnnm;:n2oim" - % A
um Homm ma. JI18'l'!(5:EV
mm Hownm gum.
BETWEEN:
1. The State ,1:
ByitsSg;«€é1ééta1*3g--:--'V ~ '~
Revcnut; _Dcpamnent, '_ "
Vcégdhi,' ' ' _
2. The A
i~§a1urTaIu£*,,
A % jf*{B3_r Kawddy, GA)
* ~ $10 Ramayya.
' Aggad aabgut 75 Years,
"-R]'O Village,
2 ,_l§aSa"1ha'H®Ii,
563 I30
(Respondent - Saved)
*_*_,_’A’___ i_ -k_ *,,1h___ *
wart AI-arms;
This Writ Appeal is am under Section 4 of’:
High Court Act, praying to set aside the
Petition No.8871[2007 (18% 11.06.2007.
‘fins’ Writ Appeal coming on fox ‘lilcm 13%|?» ”
puma mm; 4., delivered the *
v-mu…—–
%11.r:1r1>g;j_._n’kzI’1’%M
Sxifiasavaxaj Kiarcdv – cat Advocate
appeared for appe ts. evw. afiacr
service.
2. filed correct transhted
copy of Ann: A— the Writ Petition.
3. Sign: is ia.hpp§é1″agz§inst the order dated. 11.06.2007 passed
% A ‘, é§{if1i5:1”’m:dge}§§ zespondcnfs W.P.No.887’l/ 2007.
‘ 4. . ” by ccztain observations and directions
ifisued Single Judge contained in Para 3 onwards
‘ A’ _ in general they are c the oztierpasfi by
; Respondent herein rm approached learned Single Judge by
preferring Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
51.4%?
Constitudmn of India, for quashment of Edzuated
04.06.2007 issued by appellant No.2 herein
ADIICXIIIB — ‘A’ to Writ Petition. «
6. It appears that before eat
brought to his notice that – “A”V,” by the
Tahsildar, dated 04.06.2G(§ ?.js to aedelder med by
this Court in w.P.1§o.224/gees fi.o1.2oo7, whereby
and w11e1eunder;ih’a.:~:£.xfix’st been executed by
original subsequent sale deeds
made void as it had violated
the pmviéionsepf Caste and Scheduled ‘Tribe
(Prohibition (Sr offlertain Lands) Act, 1973.
– A V ée’eoi’m_t of as contained in the order dated
W.P.No.224/2005, Assistant Comzmss1o’ ‘ net,
— issued anoticc to the purchaserasfarbackas
which is manifest from the translated eopy of
– “A” filed by the State. In the said noeoc, subject is
V” i.e., land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.112 of Malur
7%
Village, Malur Taluk and reference is made with regard to notice of
Assistant Commissioner, Kolar, dated 06.03.2007.
8. This would go to show that the Tahsikiar
done nothing in the matter. He was .
direction, which were already issued thy
in turn who had acted on _Vof_theV
order passed by this Court in it could
not be said that L gppeikant No.2 was
either in breach of zfule of…:a~.§g;;;~or Learned
5311815 A131J_ -~ “A” went on to dame’ t
impositionof ‘cost of of Rs.5,000/– to be pan!’ by
appellant _No.2t case he fails to pay the same to
the
seen that Annextne — “A” has aheady spent,
because,’ it that appelhnt No.2 was to take possession
-. jV»’V’«Q13’».l2.06.f2.{)J(2}7, whereas the same was quashed by learned Single
day prior thereto, i.e., on 11.06.2007.
T In View of this, the directions, observations or xmaflts made
3 learned Single Judge against the competence or performance of
“E4;
appellant No.2, cannot be sustained in Law.
hcmby quashed. In case any moovery has
appellant No.2 pursuant to the oxdei’
Judge, then the same shall be – ‘, 1 ”
11. With the aforesaid disposed of,
but with no orderastoorfiéts. K ‘ A H
AGV.