1 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.33891 OF 2010 (SCST) BETWEEN: SRI R. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. N. RAMASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS YELETHOTADAPALYA ANJANAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. ... PETITIONER (BY M/S. SRINIVAS & BADRI ASSOCIATES, ADVs.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, K. G. ROAD BANGALORE-560009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE. 4. SRI YELLAPPA S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA GOOLAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARANA HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 5. SRI BYRAPPA S/O. REDDAPPA ANJANAPURA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 2 6. SRI MANJUNATH S/O. SRI NAGAPPA NO.65, 6 TH MAIN ROAD 34 TH CROSS, 4 TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S. MAHANTESH, A.G.A. FOR R-1 TO 3) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21-7-2010 IN APPEAL NO.240/2009 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the order dated 21-7-2010 in Appeal No.240/2009 passed by respondent No.2. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purChased land to an extent of 1 aCre 13 guntas in survey No.49 (New No.112), situate at Anjanapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore, from respondent No.5 vide registered sale deed dated 26-7-1971. During April 2005, the petitioner sold the aforesaid land in favour of respondent No.6. Respondent 3 No.4 preferred petition under SeCtion 5 of the Karnataka SCheduled Castes and SCheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) ACt, 1976 alleging that he belongs to sCheduled Caste and the aforesaid land was granted under Darkhast in his favour. Respondent No.3 ConduCted the proCeedings and held that the photoCopy of the Saguvali Chit is totally invisible and in the absenCe of original grant reCords, the alienations under different sale deeds Cannot be held as null and void and therefore, the provisions of the ACt are not appliCable and aCCordingly, dismissed the appliCation. Being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 without issuing notiCe to the petitioner, proCeeded to hear the appeal by issuing notiCe to the other respondents and restored the land in favour of respondent No.4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner is before this Court. 4 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government AdvoCate for respondents No.1 to 3. 4. Petitioner was made a party before respondent No.2 - the SpeCial Deputy Commissioner. However, the SpeCial Deputy Commissioner has not heard the petitioner, but adopted the statement of respondent No.3. The impugned order passed by the SpeCial Deputy Commissioner falls short of giving opportunity to the petitioner. Impugned order dated 21-7-2010 is set-aside. The matter is remanded to the SpeCial Deputy Commissioner to hear the petitioner and to pass orders in aCCordanCe with law. Parties are direCted to appear before the SpeCial Deputy Commissioner on 2-2-2015. Sd/- JUDGE kvk .

Load more