MADANNAGARI ADINARAYANAPPA Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition by a person who claims to belong to SC community and has also averred that he has been unauthorizedly cultivating land measuring an extent of 4 acres 14 guntas in Sy No 7/1 of Kadenahalli Dinne village, Gudibande Taluk ever since the year 1980.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved that though the grant of this land made in favour of second respondent on the premise that she is a small holder as per grant order dated 7-3- 1987 passed by the first respondent-tahsildar had been set aside by the Assistant Commissioner in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against such grant as per order dated 8-3-1995 [copy at Annexure-B to the writ petition] and the Assistant Commissioner had remanded the matter to the tahsildar to consider the applications of petitioner as well as second respondent together and also to ascertain as to whether the second respondent is really a small holder eligible for further grant in view of the extent of holdings of land by other members of the family, the tahsildar instead of giving effect to this order, while showing inaction on this front, has nevertheless, embarked upon issuing an endorsement dated 16-10-2007 [copy at Annexure-A to the writ petition], purporting to grant permission to the second respondent to sell the very land on the premise that prohibitory period of 15 years from the date of grant has expired. It is aggrieved by this unauthorized and illegal endorsement and also the inaction on the part of the tahsildar in not examining the matter on remand by the Assistant Commissioner, the present writ petition seeking for the following prayer:

(3.) SRI G Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for the petitioner has made two-fold submissions. It is firstly urged that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner setting aside the grant in favour of the second respondent and remanding the matter to the tahsildar for fresh consideration though has become final, notwithstanding a further appeal by the second respondent to the Deputy Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal as per order dated 30-6-1997 [copy at Annexure-C to the writ petition] and therefore the tahsildar was bound to reconsider the matter, he is still inactive and while so embarking on issuing an endorsement at Annexure-A permitting the second respondent to sell the land over which she had no more right is not only a mischievous endorsement but without jurisdiction and therefore prayer as sought for should be granted.