Smt Venkatalakshmamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court

Smt Venkatalakshmamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2011

Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

R,/PEI' NO693/A.

3-'Q53 BLOCK, C}L!XMARAJAPE'I'
KASABA HOBLI.

CH§KKé&BALL§--'xF'UR 'E'C}W'N 8: EEISTRICT'

5. SMTki{UN1RATHNAMMA  ~
wga KRISHNAPPA 1
MAJOR
R;'A'i' ANGAREKHANAHALLE ,_
KASABA HOBLI. ' _ 
{ZHIKKABALLAPURA'£'ALUK'~, ' .   
cazmmgaxjmpuaa DISTRICEH   REESPONDENTS

{By Sri R <)mA1§_{';<na:-_:, Agczégi R2 5: R4}

THIS PE:'I'I'I'I{}N rs F1_LE1:>_UNDE:R~';xR*H(;;§s 226 AND 22:? OF
THE CONSTI'FUT§C)N_ OF:'iNDIA% PRAYING-TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY 'I'HE I.:Ey3RNE:D :;»L:*:>UTY <:--C»M:_v;1.ssI0NER IN RA. {SC 8:
ST} 16/200Ei+_6)e3 mi. 25;8.§Z.{){}8 V:D:rf_;.ANNEXURE:-E AS THE SAME
15 ILLEGAL €VO1}3* .AN':;--..L:ABjL¥: 'TO 'BE'-SET ASIDE: AND ET<:.,

'1_'E-H-S. _<:<:>_i.m.:~§i@:' ®N...F:§R ORDERS, THES DAY, THE
COURT  FOLi.;O"éJ1I\IG: .

 f§RnER

 \'vf~,ffit§<"})"?3:VVi'){I*;€)1:T3  3" person claiming right, titie and

an é§§:fé:'1i of 3 acres of land in Sy N0 43 of

   Kasaba hobli? Chikkaballapur ialuk and

di:s.:}f 1'i::,,  cf 3. S316 tra:1sact:01'1 dated 3-2~19SQ

 eXecu3f.g§d;_ bf; ens Vein, who haé acquired or go: this land

' '§s3_r g'ovs3:*nment grani Czrder dated 2§~2--§9'?2 in LEE N0

.' 'Iii-72 wit}: {?€I'"'{&iﬁ {arms and €OIEd§T:iG§1S»,



3

2. Fourth respendent, who eiaims is be the:e'»"'wife of

originai grantee Vela ii: appears' had made 21.:2a--.2:_pp ii:faj¥;A'iz}r:

under Section 5 of the Kamaiaka SeheC1L11 §&:i.VC.é§'sﬁe3T'

Scheduied Tribes {Pr<>hiI:>itio:1j:'of 

Lands) Act, 1978 [far short; ﬁhe 
Commissioner contending  azvdti.   are
persons beienging £9'  namely
B0121 and the sgbject   her husband
during hie   gyms Of grants

3.  W'hO held an enquiry in
this re"g;'afd_ geuersisted by the claim of writ

petitiQner;p2.1rehesef=._"ihet the said Velu belenging :0

 eomrzfiuiexity and therefore the pmvisiens ef the

   and in the absenee sf saguvaii chi: being

p.fQ_eiVi2eeri--'v§§;**T::éhe appiieant, heiei that the appiieani had

'kfaiieci "§:1 1-making' geeé the pesitien that the subject land
 ggraﬁieé is her husband by the gevernment arzd

 ::f§:3reever as the gramiee 33% ihat time belozzgizeg is

E,

4*

"K

is

V//, ,,
b/'"





4

Christian COIH§1"},¥.}.f1if,:y', is not one Coming v..r:t,Iiﬁ.:i'__'s£;%:;s"}:*§*

of ihe provisions of the Act and f;1f1oug'l":t,"'ii-- 

the application.

4. Fourth respondent ﬁré'f;é%'r€d  tﬁé
Deputy Conzmissioneﬁ~..g11d'$%' §§§:%£§B.A 5A *iV>VfA 31:6 AC': arid
found that the  not cared to
look into  gggpialicant b€fO1'€ him
such as  and also ceriiﬁcate
iss;1e:1VV.._?;*:}I._'VjiiAhi_ c5   that the said V6111
belongeqﬁ ._{/'O " and in such circumstance
thought'i"tL.._fii.vtVé    the order and remanded the

mattjer Vto liiizne ssigtant Commissioner for fresh

"c0:1L.é,id<§:V;j2ztiQ";:;_.

  The"V»§?i::%§7 Asgistant Commissiener, notwithgtanding

 ._£h€ dirgééértéan {rem the Deputy Commissiorlezx yet again
":L '_1'e:§:e %;i"§€d the appIicati<3:1 as per Grder dated 19»-E2~2.(}Q5

 {gap}? at Ar:r';$Xu.r€>D 1:8 the writ petition] parrcstﬁke



 V. A §}€f§€§"QI1!'

'7

and the obsercvatiem by the Assisiant C011'1:nissie:1e~:_ te the

effect thai: there was me Categorical or ciefiﬁiiie' ..V_':§:?:e_2?_z"ie1ji3_1

before him on the aspeei as to W'hiCb;" 

grantee belengeci to and therefore the e.1f%§iet"£1.{1:se'S"-:1'<§'ﬁ :'ae__i:i'::%aei,

is met a proper finding at aft} -:s_:_I1ci tfissxf 'the :a3fi_;3gin_a1 g':'af1iee>

belonged to SC community \1ar21i:i  been solé
Within 15 years in  of gfent, thought
it fit to allow Jihe    order of the
Assistant   the competent
revenue"  restitute the land to

fourth;Vresp€i:';a:ient'v'?i,¢:1 a_ee..r_)1°d_arz Ce with iaw.

"F. If  "  this order, the present writ

     Sri Ravi Kumar, learned eounsei fer the

pe{i:_iQne:*.e $~,Zfi R Omkumaer, iearned AGA appearing for

v"~»resp0riciVehts 1 to 3 and Ms V Vijayamma, learned eeunsel

 'x§<3:'_b_f§.;;rth :espe:Q&e:1"£, an merits, éhough {he matier had

 _.vs:_;€:§:'::e up any for renewa} ef Ciepesit sf preeess fee in

5 
'J



8

respect of fifth respendent under whom tI:1;e_'4';i§e;*'4:i':.iV%:§:":.er

eiairns iitie as per sale transaetien of the   '  --

9. The fact that the origina1:'».__gra§r1tee 

community being 2. findingV'ef4--faaCt revee1'r:Ie<i'v_E§§§<i.'££1.eVE}epu:yL'

Commissioner er: the basis  1.1.":  ef caste
certiﬁcate issued bk; 'A{e.=.1*%§'S§L'.I§i"é1§tf':':ee1:<:erned, such a
finding is noteagﬁne   in writ
jurisdietioxj    in the exercise ef
jurisdi§:vt_iQ:%   Censtitutien of India.
The fiféef:  grantee in the year 1989,

assuming"   the period 0f 15 years but

 defi13§§:f§e1§,>~ being" e1:°tver_& the Act having coming into farce, is

  %i:1e.%pf%G'*Ji_sions ef subsection {2} of Seetien 4 of the

  by the Eearned AGA.

 'T§2e':'Depuiy Cemmissienez' had easseé a right order,
  reaiity, the Aseietant Cemmissiener declined to

 efeepé en iwe reunés and neiwithsiaizéing a eiear



direction by the Deputy Commissioner in the fi:r$:__reur1d

to examine this aspect.

I}. Assietaht Commissioner passing an  d.isr1f;i:~;s 

an appiieatien under Section 5  the'AAe":'en' 'thev';pire;::;iASe

that the applicant has faileci-.__\to preciiiee rrigiieirial 

prove that either the  land er
the grantee bei0ngihg;:--.ie"  or even that the
applicant has failed fie any terms of
grant» 15 3  negligence and

it is n0thihg"V.3hi-eii.::.ef  duty.

12. The Act enjeir'i~:~§the"Aesistant Commissioner ever: to

sue meiiu erivqriire ";ir1t"s:) éiich transactions in respect of a

'W,,eI.an<:i..i:g1i:e,r1ted i1'1"AVféii§'éi1I* of 3 person belonging to SC

 eé:h1riurii.i;_y*  {ex take action in accordance with the

pFC}¥?§S§0ﬂ,~S  this Act. There is no queetien of an

i' ~'~.__v'eppiie:i:2::'bef0re the Assistant Cerrirriissiener previrig' any

 p "eia;irr:..--er preﬁueirig any materiai. Preeeedirsgs are he: ir:

 ..  riaizire ef 3d'iJ€1"Sai'}7 preeeedirigs, hair is: 3 preeeedirig

 

 



10

found in 3. social Weifaré legislation having a <i;éfi'nii;e__j:s*b§:iai

objectivé to EN? achieved. Invalidation of 

happens aummatically by  '1 

provisians. It is not at the whims and fé31'} f;iEi S '0f '4ei'£hé:' 

the Assistant Cemmissioner   :;C§0£i;§n1£ssiener
to hold or etherwise   cf 'tféxriéaction by
their orders, Authorit'iV&-S;AV';$:£:s;:§501f<{1:é--:5s§.Vgmly to effectuate
legal pesitior; 5 ;1$_ed  nlgituation and to
implement o:i'j-{lieV_'A'§f;_in,V_:erms of the order for

furtherVV.:1e~tiof:V¢_ ' "

1.3. In '__2L _  this nature, Assistant

Comxrzissionézjciissxrlissirig an application, not once but on

' "'?'x}'v'(3*'v~~.6*CfC5_E";;Si(}1:1S  blatant digregard to the matcarials

 {_ai%gjf{a§il€._V % b?a;s_ "gcted with gross negligence and is net

actégjig 0:1.i€f§-§;'}:I1er3;ts of the maths}: but Ob\»'ii)US}}:' acting on

V._:::th:3r 'fjoinsicierations. Officsrs of such xxaiture are 3.

"..f:Ii€::a<:€"'io the SOCi€i§?, W110 think 1:11:33? are a law unto

 



11

ihemseives. Such errizqg" officers deserve its beviisiteci

with commensurate eerisequeriees.

14. Registrar General (if this Court is  «seriid

copy of this order to the Deputy}?e{r1riiis'sii»e:riier- ear:-e_e::riedg

who is the superier effieer.»ef.._i:he AssistanitCfemiiiissieiier»

who passed the subject erderjvjiii.:§vhVieheir'er he is now;
working now and  entry in his
service register about  part.

15. A cogs?   is be ferwarded to the
 revenue, government of
Karnat'ié:kei,.'siVo iststutery authorities under the

Act *_v_iz., i'"Assis:::,ni'*v_ Cbmmissioner and the Deputy

 «.._C0iiji_fiiis-signer are""i'i'i::i<ie sensitive to the provisions ef the

_A'<.:i:_ iiiaririer in whieh they are required to

f:ii';.eii0r:i €--.v.A"V.eepy of this erder is aise is be forwarded is

Htiie Kaifiietaka Lek Ayuiita fer holding' an enquiry into the

"--rrz:31riri,'er of eeriduei ef the Assisierxi Ceriimissierier

 ,/A

3/



12

concerned in the Centexi of passing such 0rders_..,__ which

are blatantly mega} and Contrary to the material:§13:'fi*eeo4rd.

16. This writ petitien is, iherefere, dism.i.eseﬁi.V1evfg7i:3g 

? 18,000/~ {Rupees ten ihousaxigti Qnéifgfé { '

which is to be paid to the .four£h.V_ £espc:.i1ei::;§:V_:er_i': is 

deposited before this court  aﬁid on such
deposit, the fourth  to Withdraw
the amount ihrmlgh   to be paid or
depoeiteci   failing which, the
 in favour of the
fourthilyeep-eee£'e:;f_:,i:'frgf of the cost, as though it is

8. decree passed by  <:;»«i*;/'3-. court.

 .....
EEEGE
Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Smt Venkatalakshmamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2011

Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
