Kaveriyappa Since Decd By His Lrs K ... vs The Spl Dy Commr Bangalore Dist on 24 September, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Kaveriyappa Since Decd By His Lrs K ... vs The Spl Dy Commr Bangalore Dist on 24 September, 2008

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH my OF SEPTEh.&Bf3R,,..V§() {)8_

BEFORE

THE'. HoN'BLE: MF£.JUSTIC 1§ AJ1'r~J~<réU:iJ;é;L-AV _   

WRIT PETYFION N0 182'7:=..:()F?:'(_E.':Q:/'S*i'}V 

BETWEEN

1

KAVERIYAPPA   ---  
SINCE may 32' ms I,..R'S*AK*RA»J'APPA"'~A 

K RAJAPPA ,    
S/O LATE VKAVEREA'YA£'PA_   V
45 YRS,_ E?i[()_PII;;LANz31-IALLE % "

UI'I'AR;3I~i1§iLLE H'!C)E'~LI f .  '
BANc:A1;QI--e,.E:,r3ot;?3f§--i«._   

1s:;2%2;=-":1+;1A*u'A1>F$;;-éa--. A j . 
53/0% I,A*r:: KAVERIAYAPPA
43 YRS; R/'0%PILLFiN2RHALLI
U1*11ARA11ALLI'i~iGB_Li
BAN(3ALOR}':'§ S{)U'."E"H

~  _'_§'i§§,LAFPA.. %%%%% .. «
 sglo I;Af£'E KAVERIAYAPPA

 % ». 43, YRS," 12:/0 PILLANAHALLI
% 'If1"§F.aRAHALLI HOBLI

" X i  BAIS!'GAEORE SOUTH

" " '   {..By_ SI°i*'C LAKSHMINARAYANA RAG, ADV. )

  ' }'...N1"):"

THE SPL DY COMMR BANGALORE DIST

. .. PETITIONERS.



BANGALORE
K C} ROAD, BANGALORE

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIQNER  %

BANGALROE soma 31.133 ;DI\f1'SE{_3N ;«   
KGROAD, BANGALORE    

3 KANTEMMMA
W/O NARAYANAPPA
HINDU, MAJOR    
R/O PILLAGANA;a:ALLIk' '  V 
U"I"I'ARAHALLI HD1313.   "
BANGALORE soumw  ' . 
  I  RESPONDENTS.

(By Sri R.   R15; 2;
S12: M. NAIcM;xrg:A. I€*EDI33.*, Adv. 1';»:<'r.3. )

'I','Eii3 wip. B'uE:;5§;}:?£:)j"{"}'r~£D_EE3"I§W#4%LRTICLES 226 AND 2227
01? THE :CON'S'I'1I'I'UTIQN",---- PRAYING T0 QUASH THE

ORDERS'  '1Qf4{g20'C-.1_'."0F THE FIRST RESPONDENT
AUTHORHY  

 RESTORE THE ORDER U1'.

  V" "29. i(;20€)G PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE
   j

*%kTH:S%'%%%?E'TrrIoN COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS

  DAY'-,__TH}i¢ cizpum' MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The grant was in the year E95364 and Saguvali chit " .w"as issued on 8.3.1954. The case of the petitioner] gantee is that the sale in favour of n:sponden.t:- % 3 3 is in violation of section 4(2) of the FTCL Aci, in as much as, the sale has taken place in the year 1984.

2. The Asst. Commissioner has allowed "

but however the Deputy Commissioner aisiiie the ' ; order of the Assistant Commi.ssio£ze14;.--'.A_iI9ienee,A%"tfiis«.

3. I have perused the impuggiea orders by t.'11e Asst. Commissioner a.s'w_e1l 2L)\e'pi1ty Coinﬁiissioner.

4. Apparently the Asst. Co1fmf.L1issio1ie»rVai1d the Deputy Com}I1issioneI.f'_jh.a.Ve 'hot: 2 'positive finding whether class and there is vio1a*.".io_w1'VA''Aof' ' g*ant. Indeed if the oeoressed class, section 4(2) is eiearly atif1*setedVVf;aiii1ji'g«i;egard to the faci that the sale has piece in {he...y_ear 1984. Be that as it may, this fact considered by the Asst. Coxninissioner. 5:11 1/ /{---------d 'S; ' the foliowing order is passed. 4 The petition is allowed. The impugned OFd_fE3I'S at Axmexures C arid Ii) are set aside. The: mattéz"

remitted to the Asst. Commissioner for accordance with law.

Rule made absolute.


Mr. R. Devdass,   'Vito tile'

memo of appearance    _

% ';=%'" Iudge

V98

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court