MADAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE land in dispute was purchased in a Court auction by the petitioner's husband. The Assistant Commissioner, Mandya Sub -Division, Mandya, by an order dated 31.07.1985, as at Annexure -D, dropped the proceedings, initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Act 2 of 1979 (for short, the Act). Kalaiah, the 4th respondent having filed an appeal under S. 5 -A of the Act, before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, in case No. PTCL 8/2007 against the legal representatives of Siddegowda, appeal was allowed on 14.07.2009 vide Annexure -G. The impugned order in the appeal, passed by the Assistant Commissioner was set aside and a direction was issued to take steps to restore the property to the legal representatives of the grantee. Consequential eviction notice having been issued on 21.07.2010, as at Annexure -H, this writ petition has been filed to quash Annexure -G and for grant of consequential reliefs. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the record of the case.

(2.) THE order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 31.07.1985 vide Annexure -D was questioned before the 1st respondent by filing an appeal under S. 5 -A of the Act. In the case of AIR 1998 Kant 281 , an appeal having been preferred against the Assistant Commissioner's order rejecting grantee's application for restoration of the granted land, which he had alienated in contravention of the condition prohibiting the alienation, it was held that 'the appeal to Deputy Commissioner is not maintainable as he is not 'person aggrieved' by an order and only alienee can be 'person aggrieved' if he is ordered to hand over possession of granted land purchased by him and only such alienee has been given right to appeal to Deputy Commissioner and that the grantee, whose claim for restoration has been rejected, can avail remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, if he makes out a case'.