HOORNAZ BANU, W/O. MR. MOHAMMED YOOSUF AND MOHAMED YOOSUF, S/O. LATE HAJI ABDUL SATTAR SAIT Vs. THE PRESIDENT. KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE COMMISSION, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, ARVIND BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 001, D. VENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 under Section 8 of the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 (for short ''the Act''), the Respondent No. 1/State Commission erred in registering a case, under Section 3(1)(iv), (v), (viii) and (ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST Act'), in No.70/2010, against the present petitioners and passing an order of Status-quo in respect of the property. He submits that the property bearing No. 148, situated at Sonnahalli Further Extension, Bangalore was allotted originally in favour of one D.P.Malakondaiah. The allottee sold the property to Smt. Chinnamma, who gifted the property in favour of her son C, Manjunath and he sold the property to the Petitioner No. 1 under a registered Sale Deed dated 01.06.2008. He further submits that the Respondent No. 1/State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and initiate any action against the petitioner for the alleged contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, and prays for quashing the proceedings in Case No.70/2010 and the interim order of status-quo and extension of interim order.

(2.) There is no representation for Respondents 1 to 3.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner No I that she purchased the site bearing No. 148 under a registered Sale Deed dated 06.11.2008. from the previous owner and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since Respondent No.2 interfered with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house property, the petitioner No. 1 filed a suit in O.S.No.7721/2009 on the file of City Civil Judge at Bangalore City and on 07.12.2009, the Civil Court has granted an ad-interim exparte T.I in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioners have disputed the claim of the Respondent No.2 that he is the son of late D.P.Malakondaiah. Since the property has been purchased from the previous owner, for a valuable consideration, question of initiating proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged violation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act, does not arise.