AKKAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Submission of Sri. Rahamathulla Shariff, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the order dated 27.1.2007 (copy produced as Annexure-A to the petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his appellate power under Section 5A of the Act is in the first instance a bad order in law which is the opening submission of the learned Counsel even without prefacing this submission with the narration of relevant facts of the case to enable this Court to appreciate the submission.

(2.) Submission of Sri Rahamathulla Shariff is that the subject land measuring an extent of 2 acres in survey number 102/1 situated at Shidloghatta Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Kothanur Village, purchased by the writ Petitioner way back in the year 1964 viz., a sals deed dated 23.12.1964 executed by one Byatappa a person belonging to the scheduled caste community was sold in an auction sale by the Government and purchased by the said Byatappa for a sale consideration of 4,000/-which submission made by the learned Counsel is not supported by any material on record but is a desperate submission virtually, misleading this Court on facts and reliance placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Muniraju v. State of Karnataka, 2008 AIR(SC) 1438 to support the submission.

(3.) This decision has absolutely no application nor does it support the case of the Petitioner. I say so, for the reason that for making such submission Sri. Rahamathulla Shariff has drawn my attention to the copy of the saguvali chit which it appears had been issued in favour of the grantee, (copy produced as Annexure-C) in Form No. 1 and submits that the grantee had paid 4,000/- which is a misleading submission, whereas what amount had been paid by the grantee was only a sum off 40/- and that too by way of fee towards entries etc., and samurai chit dated 18.7.1963 does recite it and in all other respects it does recite that the land was granted subject to the condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. The confusion is, more because Form No. l incorporates in it all various possibilities of a government land being disposed of in favour of private persons, including by way of public auction sale, but that does not necessarily mean it is one sold in a public auction sale and this position is confirmed by a perusal of the copy of the sale deed dated 23.12.1964 under which the writ Petitioner claims title is executed by the said Byatappa in favour of the K. Muntvenkatappa, husband of the Petitioner which never mentions the source of title in favour of Byatappa as being the land purchased in a public auction sale. It is therefore, the submission is of no avail to question the order dated 27.1.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar (copy produced as Annexure-A to the petition).