Karnataka High Court
M Sudharani vs Munishamappa on 25 June, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
snri%%%afs,jHadaman:, Advocate) 1 wpemxzoxo IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL§;3.§§E;f " amen THIS THE 23*" DAY oI= JUNE 2mc % ijj A BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'I"ICE ANAHVD.__3€'.R#§ED:b\;F B.EDMEEN.i 1. Smt Msudharanl Wfo M.S.Raju . - Aged about 42;%ye:-grs House No.45-,*'J?s>yr'a?~:m.'iei"i«.j_ .,,__" V V » Medows, Gacrgitmgll " ' _ Hyderabacfk & _ g, % 2.Smt.M.Geefi~§a_ . ._ W/0 Mfv'-33 5eeEh.aTra'ma':r'a3u .-"vA_ged._':€IbQUt 40 years .... "..VPl:t:t.«f_v7c.3';'E;, 3"'..Fioor as che_nn_a: +-- «$90-(317. ' * ...PetIt!oners :.1_';'«Sr1iAH LI'tilshamappa T ".~'.=.,!_e Late sadappa "Ageed about so years 'A 'Palya village, Jalaham Bangalore Norg(AddI.) Taluk 2 'W.P.E-6'!I!2010 2. Sr! Subbaraju S/e Chlkkamadalah, Major Basavarapura Vlllage Gottlgere Post ' : ' Bannerghatta Road Bangalore south Taluk . The Assistant Commissioner Bangalore Norm Sub-Division'.V-----~«VVf.'"3 l Bangalore. .'l11e special Deputy Cogzzlwfiissiéfielelr Bangalore Dist;-..!tt.._ l Bangalore. -- ' 4' VJ.-,V_ Respondents
(By an v.e».sfilval:éum§$;r} .4§d*4{m-atelier R1 Sr! R.Eiavclas, An'3A.lyfor "R3"'&'R4} _ ' aIk5lI:~1_l;t_s!t':¢:
Tnls wr:£lPetstl¢n *is"fl...iéd under Articles 226 and 227 of tlje Qonsfitutinn :31' India praying to Quash the erder da*ter_'.l_ 1e.o1.l2e1s Ameal Nc.162(A){2008-09 vlde, Annzgx-J. _c'unflrrnlng the order passed by the Puss-:stant'TCemmlssls;:ner Banmlcre North Sub~DIvlsIon date"d~3'1..l0 7'.fl'8L.__v'i~;ié Annex-H. _ This V¢€§'l't'vl5efitIon coming on for orders we day, l ...,'1;é;h§'Court made me following: - 5
3 wosswzoxo Q.B..D..E_B Heard the learned counsel for the, petitidi*:esé:_; "
2. The petitioner is the wife of one.Sri.M.--$';Rs1§.i':V*'VVV and the second petitioner is th_s_ motnsrriin-tow. of thediiii V' first petitioner and may ciaim""'rto_"»have"
interest over the suit had purchased 2 portions of Aianid, and 3 acres in New (§3idv":'V"S3:~.'i§io.?) totally measuring} Paiya Viiiage, Jaiahaiii, Bangaiore Novrtijd 't1fi's:'::_"-.sscond respondent under rsglstersjd. ¥$€*l'e dated 09.12.2005 and 2S--..oB.§2ovo8,._:_rsstp§ctiveiy. Ii: is ciaimed that the iand which was granted as on .D;£)4$".Q5.1962;"-L After purchase of the rand, the revenue respect of the ianm were transferred in dfaifouri of the petitioner. when matters stood thus, the respondent who claims to be the origins: grantee "of the suit larm g weii as the second respondent had 4 w.p.5em:zma filed applications invoking the provisions Karnataka Scheduie Caste and (pmhibitlon of Transfer of Certain::,A:La:n.df5i).' (hereinafter referred to as §:i*ia___V "P';'i."..'C:.i,. brevity) and in the said ft'3fUi'fi'! respondent allowed directing resumption of land and restératiéa':V.tpf""th§:Vi--'fi'me to me ciaimants, whi;;n3._':ViAi'a?$'": by the tiéfhmissloner, who in turn affirmesi' by the Assistant Commissgiemgr, is this; which is saught to be ériaiiengéé: tifie...writi§é"tition. '-- '4."_seen on the face of it that the Vpetilfiohérs admit that the iand was granted _.i._ia;u1dh a:':c.414"it"i§:_i'.:Jxi'ti1er not in dismte that due iands were tale deeds in the year 1962 and 2005 and A'"iTi"thVéire'§ is" no indication that prior sanction of me V'wf,i.:""'~§if'§?vérnment wig obtained preceding the sale 5 w.p.e:5'm2u:o transaction. Therefcre, on the petItIonersf~«~~..'£;s'@t_fj:'f; admission, there Is he Ihflrmlty to be seenhAh'*%«t;atfl§% A impugned orders. The petltlont consideration and It is accordlnght rejfitédt 9'-§':5te§;exrVeHr;:
counsel seeks to piace rehance eretms Court In Nagendrappa V "and. 'A-.an}Qth"-ér'; .:Fsrs~ Deputy Commlsstener, Dav_a'nage;fé'"aI§£j1 In ILR 2002 Kar 257:3; :t_;-gig....}ahd?_in"_tjtjestlon having been the under the PTCL Act, It was Vheid that tn»e :am was granted lafsd. tinweverg the otwtjzif the? competent Authorltles had §hh.the,hasIs of scanty csocurnents and there wast,-gorecara substantiate the same. In this ba§kgrn£:ncih;:«V#fl'tl§ Court has held that the orders could /;%thAt[n§ttttnaven«'been passed wlthnut reference to me angina! fetetijnh estabilsh that the land was granted land and sale transactions were invalid on account of vtulation cf the provlgohs of the Act. In the Instant 5 WP.657Il2030 case, however, if we petitioner himsdf admits .1'l._Vf: .
land was granted land and piaces_reiiance"'bi1*~'1ii:§tié': it 'V d%, which also recite that the iaEz1s::§vére land, in the face of which, the aEao§§{e..deciéic1r§ be pressed into service dag; pétwimér. Accordingly, the pention is