V RAMARAJU Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BELLARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER purchased 75 cents, out of 1 acre of land in Sy. No.248/5 of Mannur Village, Kamlikottala Hobli, Shiraguppa Taluk, Bellary District from the 5th respondent under a sale deed dated 23.09.1989. Since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property, which can be seen from the entries in the revenue records. Undisputedly, the land which was sold in favour of the petitioner, as above, was a tenanted land, the occupancy rights of which was conferred on respondent No.4, by the Land Tribunal on 27.10.1986. The 4th respondent having approached the 1st respondent, by invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Act 2 of 1979, a resumption order as at Annexure C having been passed and an appeal filed by the petitioner, before respondent No.2, having been dismissed, vide order at Annexure D, this writ petition was filed, to quash the orders, as at Annexures C and D, passed by respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) SRI . S.S.Patil learned advocate, contended that the occupancy rights of the property in question having been conferred on the 4th respondent, under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 and the property being not a 'granted land', in respect of which the provision of Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 is attracted, respondents 1 and 2 have committed illegality in mechanically passing the orders, as at Annexures C and D. He submitted that the 1st respondent did not conduct the proceedings of the case as per Rule 3 of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Certain Lands) Rules 1979 and there being violation of principles of natural justice, even the 2nd respondent, by acting mechanically, has dismissed the appeal vide order as at Annexure D. He submitted that the decision in the case of Mohammed Jaffar vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 ILR(Kar) 4693being applicable, impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

(3.) SHRI S.S.Magadum, learned advocate, appearing for respondent No.4, did not dispute the fact that the land sold in favour of the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the orders, as at Annexures C and D, was granted under the provisions of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. Learned counsel submitted that, respondent No.4 being a person belonging to a depressed community, approached respondent No.1 for relief and the case having been enquired into, the order at Annexure C was passed. He submitted that there being no infirmity in the order passed vide Annexure C, 2nd respondent is justified in dismissing the appeal, vide order as at Annexure D. Shri A.G.Maladar, learned HCGP, made submissions in support of the orders as at Annexures C and D.