PUTTI BAI W/O SURYA NAYAKA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SRI A.K. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O SRI A.K. NINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has raised the challenge to the Assistant Commissioner's order, dated 31.1.2007 (Annexure -E) and the Deputy Commissioner's order, dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure -G).

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the land measuring 5 acres standing at Survey No. 85/5 of the Diggenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channagiri Taluk was granted to the fourth Respondent's father Sri A.K. Ningappa on 29.11.1953. The Saguvali Chit was issued to him on 16.12.1963 imposing the non -alienation condition for a period of 15 years. On the death of the said Ningappa, his wife Smt. Rangamma and his children sold the said land to the Petitioner on 16.1.1981 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/ -. On the Respondent No. 4 (son and the L.R. of the original grantee) filing the petition for the invalidation of the sale deed executed in favor of the Petitioner and restoration of the land to him (the Respondent No. 4), the Assistant Commissioner, vide his order, dated 31.1.2007 (Annexure -E) allowed the fourth Respondent's petition. The sale deed was declared as invalid. It was directed that the possession of the land be resumed to the Government and thereafter be given to the legal representative of the original grantee. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged by the Petitioner in appeal No. PTCL/CR/1/07 -08 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order, dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure -G) dismissed the Petitioners appeal. This petition is instituted challenging the said concurrent orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.

(3.) SRI Siddamallappa has also a grievance that the Assistant Commissioner has acted on the Tahsildar's report mechanically. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, Sri Siddamallappa submits that if this Court is not inclined to allow this petition, the Petitioner be given some reasonable time to hand over the possession of the land in question. It is all the more so, because the Petitioner has invested huge amounts of money. She has grown the paddy and that the paddy crop is due for harvesting.