IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAt§:'*REI§i§'Y "
DATED THIS THE 24"?" DAY 0F JUNE 2008
BEFORE
WRYF PETITION NO. 6759 05*
BETWEEN
1
VENKATAIAH " _
SIOKFHIMMAIAH GOWDA"=.__" _
AGES» AB_0.U*:='s_2 Y-E;--A_R'S__ 'Q " ,
AGRICIJLTQRIST' '.
NAN'DlH'fj)SAE3;A-LL}VILLAGE-AND POST'
KASABA' VEOBLI, TAR.I_KER'E 'I'Q
wvA
. AGED ABomj__§g; . YEARS
" 'N.2x:>:zi)'1HosAHALL1 VILLAGE AND POST
'V " ' £3;
(BY SR1. ASHOK. :3 fs§ANg§\SI_I\II{¢°IE .§s"%4I_*M DHARIGOWDA
Am FORVR 'V . _ I _
THIS WRIT I:'ETI'I.'I'oN vES"'F.I4L-ED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OFVTHE CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA PRAYING T0
QUASH THE ORDER FASSEB' BY rm IN P'I'L 27/2001-02
DT.22--9-52003 VIDE ANN.H.'
.fI9:'aIIS'7I%E'I*I1?I0N, COMING on FOR PRELIMINARY
HE§AR.IN€3pIN_"B'_GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
I«*oL1.z,c;vI.'I1sz<:I;j~V..._
ORDER
V’ .. petitioner aggrieved by the orcier dated
‘1 Anncxum F of the Asst. Commissioner declarm g
I t}ié:”tt¥éansacfion of sale dated 12.4.1971 conveying one acre
5? land in Sy.No.147 of Nanéihosahalli, Tarikerc taluk,
Lingadahosalzalii hobli, Chickmagalur district in his flavour
a3 null and void, preferred an appeal under
Kamataka Scheduled Caste and se1;¢;1:’a;i;1§c1?.’eo.j~’:*;~1§:ese’J
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain ‘.~”.§:f;,_
the Act, whence the Deputy Commissioner
22nd Sepiember, 2003 ,3 amssea agpem V
and confirmed the order of t}1e”‘h::$:§t.. Vfilofimmisefionef. Hence,
this petition.
objections __ zespondents 1 to 3 inter alia
contendiiigg oertificate deciaring the 4th
respondent ae heiofigog the Scheduie Caste, was rightly
acoe”p.teaE:1R the Commissioner to recorfi a finding
~t]f}{a_t iekbelongs to the Schedule Caste community
anAd..44JWa$- justified in placing reiiance upon the
“CO11f1CIIZ..1_p§}flI’¢’S£}C1£3(}l1$ documents being the revenue records
the details of the grant was recorded to hold
that the sale of the land on 12.4.1971 was Well within the
non aiierzation period of 15 years from 29.11.1956 the date
of giant and therefore, hit by the pmvisions of the Act. W
rates to depressed class shouid not be alienated ”
fmm 10 years to 20 years whfle the notifie;#iene_d.’deted *
31st January, 1936 and 13th Dece§1ieef;’1938-:’ rAe1;£1ti1:;:g’:dto.”‘.
Rule 43(8) under the Mysore lfleerenuev A’Co€ien V ‘V
respect of grant of p”Ie:~:-zeribehd sdthe
occupancy grained to depressed
class under Rule 43(5) was –.JLean1ed AGA
furflrxer Fointfi “;.«V’f{evenue Ruies
amended by wherein the
periw nee was provided in the
cases of f§ee”ef_eost.
.A ‘Q kieeing. the learned eetmsel for the parties and
exafijieed impugned, the fiact that 4 acres of
_ Iaxgddin 147 of Nandihosahaiii was granted to 43*
._i*esp9nden;£ on 29.11.1956 under Depressed Class Darkest
‘R1_i1e–s;–A’:is not in dispute. Further the fact that one acre out
eff the said four acres was eonveyed under a sale deed
dated 12.4.1971 in favour of the Is’: petitioner by the
grantee is also not in dispute. What is seriously contested
M
is, the caste to which the grantee belongs to and the peziod
of non alienation laced to the grant.
“7 ‘k It is no doubt true that the petit;iox:;.er ‘?’–Ii~’V1_T_4’t
I’BSp03:1d€’:I1′{i’S claim to belong to the V
seeming the oral testimony of of”
Higher Primary School, 5, em. = L’
respondenfs son when ,aidmittied– _ schlool,._tl:;e§ records
disclosed that he belongs caste. Reliance
was sticngly covenants in the sale deed
Annexure descrfbiiig respondent as belonging to
“i{o1′;§ma_ a _lca§lstei’ According to the learned counsel,
dociiimentslllltzvhich authored by the 4*’ respondent
V evidence of the fact that the 4*
Iespondezztfielongs to “Korama Setty” caste not a notified
Caste.
V. . The fallacy of (the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is quite obvious. Isay so because the
Tahsildai” , the authority empowered to issue caste
certificate had in fact, issued the certificate V’
431 respondent as belonging to “‘Ko1§a1″I1i.a”–.a Vt
Caste. The certificate is neither ‘T 36′:
1101″ any efibrt made by the giwétifioner qn§éti_oi§,;’t’ne éaid * L’
certificate. In the fac§3 of in the
schooi register in son, woulé
have to pave way; tttvéirtitfttétttfivéfitpondcnt who
admittedly itéiitass out of sheer
register do not
refiect the, of either the 4&1 respondent
or his S(‘3’uIi,T evtan. entries in the schooi regster
ca3m;bt’ be taken’ gist conclusive evidence of a fact in issue.
‘V the certificate issued by the Tahsiklar
respondent to beiong to “Korama” caste
wé1s..__ At in my opinion, accepted by the Asst.
‘ ” é ” — ._ V qommitagioner.
Undoubtedly, the grant certificate was not produced
before the Asst. Commissioner and the efibrts to secure
the same were not fru.it:fu1. However, in the absence of the
ivk
£0
reckoning 15 years as the non alienation
03″ free grant made to the 4&1 respondent H ‘
In my considered opinion, ne;mer{ fir t1i;e_
made by the learned fox; the are ‘V
meritorious.
In the 1*c:_:3131_t, tsm :§y;s.£”p§¢:u§n is accordingly
dismissgqi V . — 1′ —
Sdf-v
Judge
Csg .4