{"id":214966,"date":"2010-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-10T16:56:33","modified_gmt":"2018-03-10T11:26:33","slug":"ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ratnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Ratnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri<\/div>\n
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 12*\" DAY 0F JANUARY, 2010\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINca:\u20ac\u00a7'ERiVA'.fg:  .\n\nWRET PETITION i\\\u00a3o.28187\/ZOQSV(KLR\u00a7'REG\u00a7\"_'l\"~\u00bb:    \"\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n Smt. Ratnamma,\n\nW\/O H. Venkataswamy,\n\nAged about 48 years,\n\nR\/at Bettadasanapura Vil|age\",~.__ . ' \nBegur Hobli, Bangalore South~_'lTia!_ul+;_,  \" '\nBangaiore Rural District.  '    Petitioner\n\n(By Sr! G.Saioas>ni$i'aiaJ5,'Adgyhooate)\n\n1. The Deiju  \nBangaiore Rural E3i_str,ic:t,_ \nBanggafore ~--\"=56OVO01.\"v_ \n\n2'-,3 it  .,The\"...;i:'ah\u00e9.iic\u00a7.!?.,i',  * ..... .. w\n ,Anekal_V'li'a.lu,k,'--..,\n ,__.Anei<'al  \n\nThe Land .Gr--anit Committee for\n. Regigaiarization of Unauthorized\n *._Cultivat;ioin of Land,\n ._An.e._kai Taluk, Anekai.\n "fRe_pr"esented by Secretary,\n,  Anei\u00e9al Taluk, Anekal ~-- 562 106\nA i  Respondents<\/pre>\n
(By Sri K.M. Natraj, Addi. Advocate General and
\nSri R. Omkumar, AGA for R1~3)<\/p>\n
|\\.)<\/p>\n
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227_..of the
\nConstitution of India praying to quash the impugned
\nendorsement issued by the R2, which is in form of Orci’e.r'”–Case<\/p>\n
No.LND.RUC.SR.221\/91-92 dated 11.9.2009, vide Ann~e.x_uVre>;2\\__t’o,<\/p>\n
the writ petition by issuing a writ of certiorari; and etc. _  <\/p>\n
This writ petition coming on for P<\/p>\n
Group this day, the court made the foiio’wing”:’   -. –.<\/p>\n
o_R__p__\u00a7…i.z.\n<\/p>\n
rel i,mina_-r\ufb01\/it Heairi ng  n’ ‘B.’ A V’<\/p>\n
The petitioner has calied que’-s.tio’n second<\/p>\n
responcient’s endorsement, dated _.’1’i’.9.3Z,QGf9..,(Anne$<'ure~D). She
\nhas aiso sought a- writ of  _e'.~r..)t"'t.iie_'_'.respondents to
\nconsider her app|icatio_n.for3._ the..'..reg4u'i'ariz,a_.tio'n' of unauthorised<\/p>\n
occupation.\n<\/p>\n
2. The factsVVof’:’t.h’e  brief are that the petitioner
\nciaims to haxve *bVee’n_ R’iVin\u00bb~a,u’tshorisediy cuitivating the ianci
\nmeasuring}? acres 9’at.._,VSVy.No.156 of Huiimangaia Viiiage, ligani<\/p>\n
   Bangaiore Rural District for over 20 years.<\/p>\n
 It is h.ot’9.._inA d’isp_.iJ_te9..,”that the land in question is a Government<\/p>\n
V’1r9VgVomai  made an application, dated 3.9.1991<\/p>\n
9944’\u00e9_:'{‘An’*n,e><ii,.re-B)'9for the reguiarization of her unauthorised<\/p>\n
 the said land. The respondent No.2 has issued an<\/p>\n
 V9ii*iip'u-gi*i9ed endorsement intimating that the petitioner's<\/p>\n
9"'va'p'piication is rejected, as the land in question comes within a<\/p>\n
\ufb01gs'<\/p>\n
forbidden zone of 18 kilometers from Bruhath Bangalore<\/p>\n
Mahanagara Palike limits.\n<\/p>\n
3. Aggrieved by the same, this petition is presente.d_i.i-.n\u00b0~.,_<\/p>\n
4. Sri Sadashivaiah, the learned counsel forthe rp’e:tVlt’ionefr <\/p>\n
submits that the impugned endorsemeintlils”w_ithout:lj:uri_sdiQi:’iovn”.<\/p>\n
The third respondent has no yecompletencze vvh_–at’soever,”–~.:to~,<\/p>\n
consider the petitioner’s app|icatio–n.\u00a7””~l. It his\u00bbSri.aS;adavshi’vaiah’s’V’<\/p>\n
grievance that the applicationoug\u00bbiit”‘tofhaVve._ been “p*la’ced before<\/p>\n
the competent authority, name\u00a3.y’, try:-ell’Depuityfcos\ufb01nmissioner.<\/p>\n
5.    notice the provisions<\/p>\n
contained in”-Rule V9?(5’lZ_ljVoi”th:e~.l{arnataka Land Revenue Rules,<\/p>\n
1966 (heyreinafter_:’cailedA”‘.thle”V said Rules’) in support of his<\/p>\n
:rf:’oVn’tenti’o.n’ that ‘i-fy.the'”glo’r*n’al land fall within the specified radius,<\/p>\n
the’  grant of land can be disposed of only by<\/p>\n
‘xsthe Deputy VC.orhmi”issioner. The provisions contained in Rule<\/p>\n
 of thesfaid Rules is extracted hereinbelow:<\/p>\n
 v._y_’.’j”A’97(5) from the date of commencement of the
\nKarnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 2007,
\nV’ “the gomal lands in villages comprised within the<\/p>\n
municipal corporation limit\u00e9 d the areas within 25”<\/p>\n
kms, from the outer limits of Bruhat Bangalore
\nMahanagara Palike, 10 kms, from the outer limits<\/p>\n
the other City Corporations and 5 kms, fro’ifi-‘r”~tire_’___i  it <\/p>\n
outer limits of the City Municipal Councils sh__ali  ti
\ndisposed off by the Deputy Commissionerii\u00e9tsubject to-<3 <\/p>\n
the general orders of the State he-S4over.ni'nent  <\/p>\n
behalf. "\n<\/p>\n
6. Nextly, the learned counsehtrelies on”Ru_l:e 8(6) of the
\nKarnataka Land Grant Rules”; ‘1\u00a7’_:69;;'(!\ufb01\u20ac~!fe.il\ufb01after called ’19s9
\n. Rules’) and submits that the_Ta:hs.ilda\u00a7:gu\u00a7’htV&:tl.ot”.to have placed
\nthe application bevfo:re:;1ist\u00bbh’_e l\\l’o:3′;”‘”he ought to have
\nplaced the matter.V.be.te\u00e9:re Cojmmissioner. The same
\nprovisions are extract-edV_
\n“8(6  is not competent to
\ngrantland under.these rules or where the extent of
\n A’ land for”i’sm.ore than the extent of land he is
\n conjpetent togzrant he shall submit the application to
\n ~the;-  competent under these rules to
\ngrant such’ ‘extent of land along with the report in the<\/p>\n
K  matter and such competent officer may pass orders
\nit ”   ‘ * ._’graintingj”‘the land. ”\n<\/p>\n
  7; \u00bbThe learned counsel submits that the respondent No.3<\/p>\n
 j_\u00bb-__has,no’competence even to reject the petitioner’s application. It<\/p>\n
 ‘could have only been returned the application to the respondent<\/p>\n
No.2 for placing the application before the Deputy
\nCommissioner. He has also relied upon the Division __i3ench<\/p>\n
judgment of this Court in the case of THE <\/p>\n
KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE ooeewa\ufb01iyisti-\ufb01t’<\/p>\n
AND omens v. HOLEYAPPA mo Q3}-i_ERS_–‘repoirtveti-in’ ..V1|.-3″ ”<\/p>\n
2007 KAR 259. He has read out the ii-eac\u00a3’_”i-tote”\u00a2’-vvhiiich:7re.aC\u00a7.$<\/p>\n
as foiiows:\n<\/p>\n
“[c] KARNATAKA LAND  }\u00a3ic:r,’__1″9i54-\n<\/p>\n
SECTIONS 94–A, 94~aic4e}’iND.’_”94.\u00bbc’ ‘oi-f”7’;HE ACT AND
\nRULES – Rights given under’ti7e:”Sta_tutee\u00bbt)bject and
\npurpose of 5 Diversiohn\ufb02itoii  lanai for other
\npurposes ~_   priveivij\u00e9-iincierhhha Statute in<\/p>\n
favour of _unautheriser:i””occupants can neither be
\ntaken away nor made nugatory unless<\/p>\n
the provisions-ohf -_Se’cVtio.os 94–A, 94~B and 94–C of<\/p>\n
_ the and Ruiesvvareideclared as unconstitutional –
\n.  EiEtD, There is nothing wrong in diverting
\n _’eithe,r  or any other reserved \/and for
\nother  when there is no sufficient cattle<\/p>\n
popuiatifonih that area when there is no requirement<\/p>\n
“of elantixfor free pasturage and the purpose for which<\/p>\n
“‘:”_t’he”‘reservation does not exist — The occupation of
\n   by unauthorised occupants has become
\n “inevitable which reality and factual situation has<\/p>\n
he been taken note by the Grnment, therefore, the<\/p>\n
statutory rights given to the unauthorised occupants
\ncannot be deprived of. The order of the learned
\nSingle Judge is set aside. ” ”\n<\/p>\n
8. He also brings to my notice the decision__\u00a7*e’rider’ed’ u<\/p>\n
this Court in the case of MANJE GCWDA   <\/p>\n
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in:…4:i’97’3_(‘2_)’\u00ab.:KL3\u00bb.._:4o5\u00a7<\/p>\n
The relevant head note portion,.t’w4_hich’he’readtV\u00bb’outi:’_reac\u00a7s.as_”*.<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Where once the’  i.Com_rngr”\u00ab.reachedA the
\nconclusion that he had the extent
\nsought by thepeti_tioriery’responi:ient’%4;.o’r any other
\napplicant, it.  thjatithe .gDep.uty:’Commr cannot
\ngrantior _rejecvt*_any,appiicatio_n for the area of land
\nthat   e\u00a7<cesslh';2s:l;iioi*vers. "\n<\/p>\n
9. fiihe leamieid’ ‘1Ad’diti:onal Advocate General, Sri i<.M.
\n  a scheme of the Land Revenue Act, Land<\/p>\n
Re\\re–n:ue-_i\u00a7ules~..a'iiVdf'-lcand Grant Rules is such that the application<\/p>\n
 the "-regularighizfation of unauthorised occupation has to he<\/p>\n
""':ictons"idggered..only by the third respondent Committee. The<\/p>\n
a'pplica'tio.n's for the grant of certain lands can be considered by<\/p>\n
.,D.eputy Commissioner. The learned Additional Advocate<\/p>\n
lhl"–\u00abV.AVAG"eneral makes subtle distinction between the application for the<\/p>\n
grant of land and the application for the regularization of<\/p>\n
unauthorised occupation. The regularization of una4u'thoti'sed<\/p>\n
occupation pre-supposes the occupation of the '~lia'hci\u00e9 <\/p>\n
unauthorisedly. On the other hand, the_a.pp_i_i'can'tH\u00a7o"r' 'o_Vfu"<\/p>\n
land need not be its occupant.\n<\/p>\n
10. The learned Additional Ad’v.oc\u00bbate Genetalv-isuabimits that<\/p>\n
the legislature has conferredthe  the Committee,
\nas is evident from the provisionsA,_co’.ntafined,:’in{S;e.ction 94–A(1) of
\nthe Karnataka Lan;d”Re\u00a7L=’enu_e   said provision is
\nextracted herei ‘<\/p>\n
“9<};}i"(xV1')iA  tufes as may be
\nprescrib_ed_ the Government shall, by
\nnoti\ufb01cation, iicoiistitute .f'c_;r each taluk a committee
\nconsistiog oi' such 'number of members not exceeding<\/p>\n
  \ufb01v-e.\u20acof,.A'-whom one '''shall be a member of Legislative
\n' .4issem'b[y*f'or::"th_e purpose of grant of land under sub-<\/p>\n
 11_. ll-ive':'brings to my notice the Rule 1080 of the said<\/p>\n
 with the procedure that the Regularization<\/p>\n
 'nCpVm.m.irttee has to follow. The said Rule is extracted<\/p>\n
 \ufb01h'erei nbelow:\n<\/p>\n
\ufb01i\ufb01tt<\/p>\n
“1080. Procedure of the Committee: (1) The
\nCommittee or the Additional Committee shall, a4fter__c..,_<\/p>\n
verifying the particulars furnished by the appii\u00a3’3ARf_’i”‘.j’ <\/p>\n
and after holding such enquiry as it deems nei?:g\u00e9’ssaryi’ <\/p>\n
determine the extent of land to which the  <\/p>\n
is entitled for grant and the amountiirequired’ Vto”be.,___  it<\/p>\n
paid by him for the grant and the amount reqLiire’d”to’3′: <\/p>\n
be paid by him for the grant “land, pubiish fa hhhcei<\/p>\n
which shall be in Form No.52…iinrthe_,gChavadiyofiithe
\nVillage in which the  _is*’_V_situa’teo’\u00bb also in the
\nOffice of the Mandal  invitit;g__’.’.objections
\nfrom the interested   proposed grant,
\nwithin such  be -specifiedwbwin the notice,
\nwhich shail._not:j_be’w”iessb”.:ti:an”‘b’\ufb01fteen days from the
\ndate  <\/p>\n
(2) the period speci\ufb01ed in the<\/p>\n
notice thekcommittee or the Additional Committee<\/p>\n
 shaft,  considering the objections received and<\/p>\n
. after _furth.er~.,enquiry, if necessary, recommend for<\/p>\n
  griangt unauthorisedly occupied by the<\/p>\n
ap_plicant”of’to dismiss it subject to the provision of<\/p>\n
 _ Rule .,1o:\u00a7_3~1.\n<\/p>\n
 ,  On such recommendations, the Tahsildar who<\/p>\n
‘shall be the Secretary of the Committee or the<\/p>\n
C V’ “Additional Committee, as the case may be, shall,<\/p>\n
issue an order of grant and issue certi\ufb01cate of grant<\/p>\n
33%<\/p>\n
or Saguvali Chit in Form VII speci\ufb01ed under
\nKarnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969; or dismiss the
\napplication, as the case may be;\n<\/p>\n
(4) First instalment shall be paid in accorda’n7ce.’._!:  <\/p>\n
with clause (a) of subsection (6) of sgiiai Etlfldh\ufb02\u00e9
\nremaining two instalments of .:’vi-ii”IOUn’1′  if  A
\nany, shall be paid by the applicahtt
\nfrom the expiry of the last date \ufb01xedfor paymen:t_of  it<\/p>\n
first instalment.\n<\/p>\n
(6) Appeal against ;:oi”:I’er\u00a3f: “the Tahsildar
\non the recommendations-of ‘the  shall lie
\nto the Assistant:VComnjission:e,i,::  of  Additional
\nCommittee shall  the  Commissioner. ~<\/p>\n
12. The A6tilti’o’nai’*:.AAci\\rocaEe Genera: aiso brings to my
\nnotice theinon ohst-ahVte”‘cEa’:ise contained in Section 94—A(6) of
\nthe  Rev\ufb02ehue Act, 1964, which states that the<\/p>\n
 the order of grant of land, on the<\/p>\n
h’xsirecommetgdations.3’ot the Committee or the additionai Committee.<\/p>\n
‘  Vr\ufb01rovisiom-‘eads as foiiows:\n<\/p>\n
 –..V”–..”\u00a7i\u00a54~A(6), Notwithstanding anything contained in<\/p>\n
  the preceding sub-section, —\n<\/p>\n
(a) The Tahsildar concerned shall issue the order
\nof the grant of land, on he recommendations<\/p>\n
H}
\nof the Committee or additional Committee, as<\/p>\n
the case may be, if any, and issue the saguvali
\nchit. The amount payable if any, shall be paid<\/p>\n
in three equal instalments, of which the <\/p>\n
one shall be before the expiry of a periohd -1- <\/p>\n
thirty days from the date of communlCation\u00bbA.l.:of._<\/p>\n
the order of grant and the “‘rem’aininof’two’57’ I<\/p>\n
within such period as may be pi?es\u00e9ribed,”  ” it\n<\/p>\n
(b) xxxx<\/p>\n
(C) The trees, if any,~.standingn the land”gra’nted
\nand granite in ism;  sha_ll,;Continue to
\nbelong to._the C50-verjnment, ‘i4il7ioh{.’may at its<\/p>\n
  dis;\u00a7,ds,edM arr it, in such manner
\nas it  ., ‘ C\n<\/p>\n
13. TheC:_”quest’ion..:’thhatsfalis from my consideration is
\nv\\i_hether’,t_ne trhirdxr\u00e9seovnderit Committee has the competence to
\n:’clonsideri,Vl’:t:~erlapeii<:ation for the reguiarization' of unauthorised<\/p>\n
occudaa-di:.lAd=r gonna: land failing within the forbidden radius.<\/p>\n
VTVo_answ\u00e9r this iesiue, the various provisions of the Act and Ruies<\/p>\n
framed thereunder. are to be considered harmoniously. I do not<\/p>\n
a"ny"head—0n coiiusion between the statutes and the Ruies,<\/p>\n
 it anti 'if"there is a confiict betwegrghe statute and the Rules, the<\/p>\n
ll
\nprovisions of the statute shall prevail over those of the rules.<\/p>\n
The provisions contained in Section 94-A(1) and 94-A(6) which
\nare extracted hereinabove confer the power of considering the
\napplication for the regularization of unauthorised occupa'ti'o\u00bbn on<\/p>\n
the Committee.\n<\/p>\n
14. As pointed out by the learned4AdditioIna.l(pdilcixx\ufb01ocatellwl<\/p>\n
General, the subtie distinction has to;’~,be1’_’_’drawn. <\/p>\n
appiication for the grant of the land’-a__nd thenapplli-cation-for thew<\/p>\n
reguiarization of unauthorised occu.pati.oni_,g The’a.ppli{:ation for<\/p>\n
the regularization of the un”aultgh.o’ricse{–dg}occupation pre–supposes<\/p>\n
the possess_ion””o’r~  On the other hand,
\nthe applicant’~fo_r4.the\u00abgVran~t_lfu\u00abr;the~~’land may not be the occupant
\nof the land. _ Th’e4\u00b0provisi”,onsv.loVf”‘tVhe Rules conferring the power on
\nthe C-omm&iss’ion’e’r”‘for disposing of the application are in<\/p>\n
reslpect_of’th:e._app’lica_::ion for grant of the land. Rule 1081) of the<\/p>\n
‘W….said Ruies dea’|’in;g’i:;with the procedure of the Committee aiso<\/p>\n
..’.{.”::(7.3al.l’i’!.:.iTeS the position. In the resuit, I negative the submission<\/p>\n
 .o_n”}behalf of the petitioner that the third respondent<\/p>\n
‘ ‘V:u”iCornmigttee has no competence to dispose of the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
ia_pp’lication for the regularization of unauthorised occupation.<\/p>\n
\ufb01g};\n<\/p>\n
But it does not mean that the endorsement issued by the
\nrespondent No.2 is upheld on merits. The petitioner’s grievance<\/p>\n
over the issuance of the impugned endorsement hasitos be<\/p>\n
agitated by way of appeal before the Assistant  <\/p>\n
provided under Rule 108D(6) of the said Rules.    t<\/p>\n
15. This petition is dismissed, but <\/p>\n
to the petitioner to avail of the appeal remedy. :i’ai\ufb01ia’ppealti:\u00a74A<\/p>\n
filed before the Assistant Commissioner, listavmelkishall be
\ndisposed of by him on me:-i:ts~,._ wifthou:ti”bei,.n’g_influe’noed by the<\/p>\n
dismissal of this petition.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Ratnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2010 Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 12*” DAY 0F JANUARY, 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINca:\u20ac\u00a7’ERiVA’.fg: . WRET PETITION i\\\u00a3o.28187\/ZOQSV(KLR\u00a7’REG\u00a7”_’l”~\u00bb: ” BETWEEN: Smt. Ratnamma, W\/O H. Venkataswamy, Aged about 48 years, R\/at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRatnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ratnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-10T11:26:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ratnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-10T11:26:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2196,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Ratnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-10T11:26:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ratnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ratnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ratnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-10T11:26:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ratnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-10T11:26:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010"},"wordCount":2196,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010","name":"Ratnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-10T11:26:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnamma-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ratnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214966","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214966\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}